UC-NRLF 


$B  3m  Til 


}fyD?>j> 


THE  STUDY  ;.Qfi  HISTORY 

IN  SECONDARY  SCHOOLS 


REPORT  TO    THE 

AMERICAN   HISTORICAL   ASSOCIATION 

1 1  ^  \ 


BY 

A    COMMITTEE    OF   FIVE 

ANDREW  c.  McLaughlin,  chairman 

CHARLES  H.  HASKINS        CHARLES  W.  MANN 
JAMES  H.  ROBINSON  JAMES    SULLIVAN 


THE   MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

1911 

All  rights  reserved 


,    t    f  '        '   '     '    ,  f    f       ; 


«  I    t      r        ft 


Copyright,   191  i, 
By   the    MACMILLAN    COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  March,  191 1. 


Ncirfaoot  ^reas 

J.  8.  Gushing  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


THE   STUDY   OF    HISTORY 
IN    SECONDARY   SCHOOLS 


235398 


5         1       >  1 

1       J         3        ' 


^  ,    '       )        J         >     J 

''\ '.,,  ^ ;        .  s  >  s  ,s '. 


THE  STUDY  OF  HISTORY  IN 
SECONDARY  SCHOOLS 

This  Committee  was  appointed  by  the  Council 
of  the  American  Historical  Association  at  the 
Madison  meeting  in  1907.  As  originally  consti- 
tuted the  Committee  included,  besides  the  four 
members  signing  this  Report,  Mr.  Charles  W.  Mann, 
Professor  of  History  in  Lewis  Institute,  Chicago. 
Mr.  Mann  died  in  the  spring  of  1909.  He  had 
been  much  interested  in  the  work  of  the  Committee 
and  as  a  practical  school-man  had  paid  careful 
attention  to  the  problems  to  be  solved.  We  take 
this  opportunity  to  express  our  sorrow  for  the 
loss  of  a  wise  and  successful  teacher  and  our  appre- 
ciation of  the  value  of  his  counsel. 

I.    Relation  of  this  Committee  to  the 
Committee  of  Seven 

Although  two  of  the  members  of  this  Committee 
were  also  members  of  the  Committee  of  Seven,  we 
make  no  pretence  of  representing  the  earlier  Com- 
mittee or  of  attempting  to  give  an  authoritative 


2  The  Former  Committee 

interpretation  of  its  Report.  We  have  made  a 
new  study  of  the  conditions  in  the  schools,  and  have 
entered  once  again  into  a  careful  consideration  of 
the  history  curriculum.  The  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Seven,  however,  has  necessarily  been  our 
starting-point;  we  were  appointed  to  determine 
what  modifications,  if  any,  were  needed  in  the 
recommendations  of  the  earlier  Committee.  This 
task  could  not  be  perfornied  without  interpreting 
the  Report;  and  in  some  instances  interpretation 
or  emphasis  appeared  more  desirable  than  any 
very  distinct  modification.  In  the  following  pages, 
therefore,  we  present,  not  only  our  own  recom- 
mendations for  change,  but  also  what  appears  to 
us  to  be  the  proper  or  the  most  helpful  and  useful 
construction  of  the  work  of  the  Committee  of  Seven. 

11.   The  Report  of  the  Committee, of 

Seven 

In  1899,  when  the  Committee  of  Seven  published 
its  Report,  the  schools  were  ready  for  decided 
change  in  the  curriculum  and  for  advance  in  meth- 
ods. The  Report  appears  to  have  judged  the  gen- 
eral situation  correctly,  and,  in  the  main,  to  have 
recommended  steps  that  the  schools  were  prepared 
to  take.  From  one  side  of  the  continent  to  the 
other   courses   were   fashioned   with   deference   to 


Uniformity  3 

its  recommendations.  The  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee affected  not  merely  the  curriculum  but 
also  the  method  and  even  the  aims  of  history  teach- 
ing, and  its  natural  result  was  also  to  bring  about, 
or  help  to  bring  about, -the  establishment  of  sub- 
stantially similar  curricula  in  a  large  portion  of  the 
schools  the  country  over.  In  general  this  move- 
ment appears  to  us  to  have'been  wise  and  admirable. 
The  approxmateunif  qm  theJijs.toix.curricula 

of__the_schools J.S  in  itself_so_desirable  that  the  con- 
dition ought  not  to  be  disturbed  except  for  strong 
reasons  or  where  there  is  good  ground  for  expecta- 
tion that  a  large  percentage  of  the  schools  can  easily 
and  willingly  accommodate  themselves  to  the 
change.  Noi_tlialjLbsokite_confQj^^ 
reS^eJ§Jai.,^_caags_vri^;_„ig(^£qn^^^^ 
culiar_cjrcumstances  may  justly_have  more  influence 
on  the  shaping  of  a  curriculum  than  any  theory 
of  adjustment  or  of  ^rrelation  of  studies.  But 
there  is~sucirarthihg~as  a  logically  developed  series 
of  history  courses,  and  there  are  general  principles 
that  are  largely  applicable  to  the  great  majority 
of  schools ;  such  principles  may  in  special  cases 
need  modification;  but  they  need  not  be  en- 
tirely ignored.  It  is  probably  unnecessary  to  prove 
to  the  practical  teacher  the  convenience  of  sub- 
stantially similar  courses  in  the  high  schools, 
especially   if    college    entrance    requirements    are, 


4  Present  Situation 

or  can  be  brought  to  be,  in  accord  with  what  the 
schools  are  prepared  to  furnish. 

In  Kght  of  all  these  facts  we  have  felt  it  pecul- 
iarly advisable  to  look  into  present  conditions 
carefully  and  to  recommend  only  such  change  as 
appeared  indubitably  advantageous  and  clearly 
in  the  line  of  progress.  Fortunately  no  very  rad- 
ical alteration  in  the  curriculum  appears  necessary.^ 

III.   The  Present  Situation 

The  present  Committee  was  appointed  by  the 
American  Historical  Association  as  the  result  of 
a  petition  from  the  Headmasters'  Association  pro- 
posing that  certain  changes  be  made  in  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  of  Seven.  The  petition  asked 
for  a  modification  in  the  extent  of  the  field  of" 
ancient  history  and  for  a  reducti9n  of  what  was 
thought  to  be  an  over-emphasis  "upon  the  desira- 

1  The  Committee  of  Seven  recommended  four  fields  of  history, 
each  normally  a  year's  work,  to  be  taken  in  the  following  order  :  — 

1.  Ancient  History,  with  special  reference  to  Greek  and  Roman 
history,  but  including  also  a  short  introductory  study  of  the  more 
ancient  nations.  This  period  should  also  embrace  the  early 
Middle  Ages,  and  should  close  with  the  establishment  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  (800)  or  with  the  death  of  Charlemagne  (814) 
or  with  the  Treaty  of  Verdun  (843). 

2.  Mediaeval  and  Modern  European  History,  from  the  close 
of  the  first  period  to  the  present  time. 

3.  English  History. 

4.  American  History  and  Civil  Government. 


Present  Course  5 

bility  of  cultivating  the  reasoning  faculty  rather 
than  "mere  memory  "  by  historical  study.  Before 
taking  action  on  these  matters,  it  appeared  to  us 
necessary  to  study  the  whole  subject  anew,  to 
gather  information  concerning  the  existing  sit- 
uation in  the  schools,  and  to  make  recommendations 
that  the  general  survey  of  the  field  appeared  to 
justify.  We  sent  circulars  of  inquiry  to  history 
teachers  in  all  sections  of  the  country  and  obtained 
helpful  information  from  the  answers  to  these 
inquiries.  We  gained  further  knowledge  from 
discussions  in  teachers'  meetings  and  associations. 
The  general  subject  was  discussed  in  the  American 
Historical  Association,  in  the  New  England  History 
Teachers'  Association,  in  the  North  Central  History 
Teachers'  Association,  in  the  Association  of  History 
Teachers  of  the  Middle  States  and  Maryland,  in  a 
convention  of  the  History  Teachers  of  California, 
and  in  other  gatherings  as  well.  Some  of  the  asso- 
ciations have  made  special  and  detailed  study  of 
the  problems  we  have  had  to  consider,  and  the 
published  reports  of  these  associations  have  been 
serviceable  in  enabling  us  to  appreciate  the  prevail- 
ing sentiment  on  critical  questions  and  to  estimate 
differences  of  opinion  and  judgment.  The  recom- 
mendations in  the  following  pages,  therefore,  are 
based  on  information  gained  from  a  variety  of 
sources. 


6  Present  Situation 

To  give  in  detail  or  in  synoptical  form  all  the  in- 
formation gathered  from  the  replies  to  the  ques- 
tions in  the  Committee's  circular  appears  to  be 
unnecessary;  but  it  may  be  well  to  give  here  a 
brief  survey  of  the  general  situation  as  disclosed  by 
these  replies  and  by  the  debates  and  reports  to 
which  we  have  just  referred. 

(i)  Ten  years  ago  there  were  some  sharp  criti- 
cisms of  the  Committee  of  Seven's  Report  because 
it  ventured  to  mark  out  a  course  in  history  extend- 
ing over  four  years.  But  even  then  an  occasional 
school  was  offering  a  similar  amount  of  work,  and 
since  that  time  the  development  of  the  school  cur- 
riculum has  shown  that  four  years  of  work  can  be 
quite  generally  offered.  For  example,  out  of  93 
schools  which,  in  reply  to  our  inquiry,  describe 
or  name  their  history  courses,  7  offer  five  years  of 
work,  38  offer  four  years,  2  offer  three  and  a  half 
years,  42  offer  three  years,  and  4  offer  two  years* 
It  is  thus  apparent  that  four  years  of  work  is  a 
possible  amount.  Although  a  sound  three-year 
course  may  be  recommended  to  schools  desiring 
to  do  only  three  years'  work,  it  is  equally  desirable 
to  prepare  a  four-year  scheme  for  schools  that  can 
furnish  the  longer  schedule.  This  Committee 
beUeves,  as  did  the  Committee  of  Seven,  that  four 
years  are  needed  and  should  be  offered  where 
conditions  permit 


Ancient  History  7 

(2)  It  is  not  so  easy  as  it  might  at  first  appear 
to  ascertain  just  how  far  the  school  curricula  have 
been  shaped  in  accordance  with  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  of  Seven. ^  But  it  is  not  necessary  to 
know  by  exact  measurement  the  influence  of  the 
Report ;  it  is  sufficient  to  know  that,  whether  the 
Report  has  been  consciously  followed  or  not,  school 
programmes  are  now  very  commonly,  though  by 
no  means  universally,  in  accord  with  its  recommen- 
dations. Moreover,  even  when  there  are  varia- 
tions in  other  particulars,  many  schools,  we  judge 
the  vast  majority,  have  abandoned  the  attempt 
to  cover  general  history  in  a  single  year  and  have 
adopted  the  plan  of  offering  blocks  or  periods  of 
history.  This  alone  constitutes  an  important  ap- 
proach to  the  scheme  of  the  Committee  of  Seven. 

(3)  It  is  not  possible  to  determine  from  the  replies 
to  our  circular  alone  just  what  is  the  opinion  of 
teachers  concerning  the  field  of  ancient  history. 
The  conditions  and  difficulties  are  not  the  same 
in    all   sections   of    the   country,    probably.     The 

*  For  example,  in  answer  to  the  question,  "How  far  has  this 
course  [of  yours]  been  drawn  up  or  shaped  in  accordance  with 
the  recommendations  of  the  Committee  of  Seven?"  one  school 
says,  "Not  at  all";  but  the  course  given  is,  nevertheless:  — 

First  year  —  Ancient  History  to  800  a.d. 

Second  year  —  800  to  the  present  time. 

Third  year  —  English  History. 

Fourth  year  —  American  History  and  Civics. 


8  Present  Situation 

teacher  in  the  East,  preparing  pupils  for  college 
examinations  in  ancient  history,  works  under  con- 
ditions differing  in  some  particulars  from  those  in 
which  the  Western  teacher  is  placed;  to  omit 
portions  of  a  text,  to  emphasize,  to  enlarge  or  to 
abbreviate  as  inclination  suggests  or  as  need  of 
time  demands,  is  a  more  serious  operation  for  the 
teacher  of  history  fitting  pupils  for  examinations 
than  it  is  to  one  whose  pupils  enter  college  on  cer- 
tificates stating  that  they  have/  covered  the  field 
required.  The  difficulty  in  the  Eastern  schools  is 
not  so  much  in  the  extent  of  the  field  to  be  covered 
as  in  the  need  of  covering  it  all  with  a  layer  of  equal 
and  even  thickness  lest  the  unwary  pupil  be  caught 
by  an  unexpected  question  of  the  examiner.  Incon- 
clusive as  the  replies  to  our  circulars  are,  the  infor- 
mation they  give  is  not  seriously  at  variance  with 
that  reached  by  other  methods  of  inquiry;  some 
of  them  contain  the  expected  complaint,  but  the 
statistics  appear  to  point  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  majority  of  teachers  are  not  discontented  with 
the  length  of  the  field. 

Of  107  schools  giving  adequate  answers  to  the 
inquiries  concerning  the  length  of  the  period, 
77  appear  to  cover  Oriental  history  and  bring  the 
study  of  ancient  history  down  to  800  a.d.,  or  try 
to  do  so;  9  stop  at  476  a.d.;  and  7  at  some  point 
in  the  fourth  century.     A  number  complain  that 


t' 


Government  and  History  9 

the  field  is  too  long,  a  few  that  the  freshmen  are 
too  immature,  and  several  that  the  text-books  are 
unsatisfactory. 

(4)  On  the  subject  of  mediaeval  and  modern 
history  there  are  differences  of  opinion  and  practice. 
Amid  all  this  diversity,  however,  one  thing  is  quite 
apparent.  Many  schools  —  we  are  inclined  to 
believe  a  distinct  majority  —  are  desirous  of  empha- 
sizing modern  history.  Certainly  the  tendency 
is  too  strong  to  be  ignored.  Here  again  one  cannot 
form  one's  opinion  solely  from  the  replies  to  our 
circulars;  but  as  usual  they  bear  out  the  conclu- 
sions one  gains  from  other  sources.  Of  the  schools 
whose  replies  have  been  compiled,  7  do  not  offer 
work  in  the  field  of  mediaeval  or  modern  history; 
14  do  not  state  the  limits  of  the  field  as  they  actually 
teach  it ;  67  aim  to  come  down  to  the  present  day ; 
II  do  not  attempt  to  do  this;  64  schools  are  in 
favor  of  placing  more  emphasis  on  the  later  portion ; 
7  do  not  think  such  emphasis  practicable ;  26  give 
no  opinion.  Some  13  schools  are  in  favor  of  a 
special  course  in  modern  history;  and  28  wish  to 
gain  time  for  the  study  of  modern  history  by  short- 
ening the  time  given  to  mediaeval  history. 

(5)  Concerning  the  relation  between  United 
States  history  and  civil  government,  and  concern- 
ing the  extent  to  which  government  can  be  taught 
in  direct  connection  with  history,  there  are  also 


10  Present  Situation 

marked '  differences  of  opinion.  There  is  evident 
difficulty  to  ascertain  from  the  replies  in  the  cir- 
cular just  what  the  teachers  desire.  There  are 
many  possible  grades  between  teaching  govern- 
ment and  history  in  two  totally  detached  courses, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  teaching  them  in  one  com- 
bined course,  on  the  other ;  moreover,  a  combined 
course  may  appear  the  best  if  the  time  at  disposal 
is  short,  and  two  interrelated  and  interdependent 
courses  may  appear  desirable  where  more  time  is 
available.  The  questions  in  the  circular  were  as 
follows  :  *'To  what  extent  does  your  study  of  Amer- 
ican history  include  civil  government  ?  Does  your 
experience  indicate  that  civil  government  can  best 
be  taught  as  a  part  of  the  work  in  American  his- 
tory ?"     The  following  are  typical  answers  :  — 

''  Our  study  of  American  history  does  include  civil 
government,  and  our  teachers  of  American  history 
are  emphatic  in  the  opinion  that  for  a  secondary 
school  the  only  feasible  way  in  which  to  teach  civil 
government  is  in  connection  with  the  American 
history.  They  heartily  indorse  the  views  of  the 
Committee  of  Seven  upon  that  point." 

"About  one-fifth  civil  government  with  a  text- 
book. I  have  taught  it  in  each  way  and  prefer 
to  make  it  a  part  of  the  work  in  American  history." 

"Our  study  of  American  history  includes  the 
study  of  political  science.     About  two-fifths  of  the 


Government  and  History  ii 

time  is  given  up  to  this.  Experience  has  indicated 
that  it  can  best  be  taught  in  connection  with  the 
work  in  American  history.  The  principal  objection 
that  we  find  to  this  plan  is  that  it  reduces  the  time 
for  history." 

^'It  should  be  taught  in  both  ways  —  historically, 
as  a  part  of  history;  systematically  and  logically, 
as  a  separate  course." 

'^  Without  doubt  civics  can  of  itself  best  be  taught 
—  I  say  from  experience  —  separately.  In  five 
months  devoted  to  civics  my  class  would  have  more 
knowledge  of  government  than  they  have  now,  — 
but  not  so  much  of  United  States  history." 

"I  am  rather  inclined  to  the  view  that  an  ade- 
quate course  in  civics  may  best  be  given  after  the 
student  has  had  the  history  course."  ^ 

The  analysis  appears  to  show  that  41  schools 
favor  teaching  the  two  subjects  together  in  a  course 
that  may  be  called  American   history  and    civil 

^  An  experienced  teacher,  when  asked  how  civil  government 
was  taught,  replied:  "In  connection  with  American  history." 
"Do  you  set  aside  so  many  hours  a  week  or  a  definite  number  of 
weeks  in  the  year  for  government?"  "No."  "How  does  the 
plan  work?"  "Splendidly."  "Do  you  use  a  text-book  in 
government?"  "Certainly."  "Do  you  believe  this  plan  of 
teaching  the  two  together  to  be  the  best?"  "That  depends  on 
the  teacher."  Possibly  we  have  here  the  real  situation ;  some 
teachers  can  without  difiiculty  manage  the  system,  others  cannot. 
But  schools  should  give  opportunity  to  the  teacher  to  teach  in 
the  way  in  which  he  finds  he  can  produce  best  results. 


12  Present  Situation 

government;  32  prefer  separate  courses;  23  partly 
follow  the  plan  of  teaching  the  two  together ;  others 
are  doubtful. 

Such  replies  and  such  information  are,  as  we  have 
said,  inconclusive.  But  in  light  of  all  the  facts 
we  can  gather  we  are  justified,  probably,  in  saying 
that  there  is  an  undoubted  desire  on  the  part  of 
many  teachers  to  have  the  opportunity  to  give  a 
separate  course  in  government,  especially  for  the 
purpose  of  dwelling  on  certain  phases  of  actual 
politics  and  government  that  cannot  be  readily 
and  adequately  discussed  in  connection  with  Ameri- 
can history.  The  need  is  not  so  much  for  a  radical 
revision  of  method  as  for  sufficient  time  to  do  both 
subjects  profitably. 

(6)  On  the  subject  of  memorizing  and  the  attempt 
to  get  generalized  knowledge,  the  circular  asked 
the  following  question :  "Does  it  seem  to  you  that 
the  Committee  [of  Seven]  has  laid  undue  stress  upon 
comprehensive  and  generalized  knowledge  and  led  to 
the  undue  neglect  of  matters  specific  and  detailed  ?  " 
The  answers  are  clearly  in  favor  of  the  Report; 
II  think  that  the  Committee  does  lay  too  much 
stress  on  comprehensive  and  generalized  knowledge ; 
66  do  not  think  so ;  19  are  non-committal.^ 

*  In  a  series  of  recommendations  addressed  to  the  Committee 
of  Five  by  the  New  England  Teachers'  Association  appears  the 
following  paragraph:  "In  general  the  critics  of  the  recommen- 


The  Teacher  13 

(7)  The  circular  contained  an  inquiry  upon  school 
equipment  for  teaching  history.  Probably  the 
schools  receiving  the  circular  were,  on  the  whole, 
above  the  average  in  advantages  and  in  general 
strength.  However  this  may  be,  there  is  evidence 
that  there  is  a  wide  use  of  illustrative  material,  an 
earnest  desire  to  use  as  much  as  can  profitably 
be  used,  and  a  sense  of  the  value  of  sources  as  illus- 
trative material. 

IV.   The  Teacher  and  the  Material  for 

his  Use  ^Xlt^ 


/- 


The  most  important  factor  in    the   schoolroom     ' 
IS  not  the  curriculum,  the  text,  or  even  the  metho(J^^ 
but  the  teacher^    The  schools  are  taking  history*^ 
more  seriously  than  they  did  ten  years  ago,  ancfTl. 
superintendents  and  school  trustees  are  beginning  1 
to  see  how  difficult  it  is  to  get  history  taught  as  it  /■ 
should  be  taught.     Of  course  it  is  a  comparatively  \ 
easy  task  to  follow  the  winding  way  of  a  thoughtless  '; 
pupil  over  the  pages  of  a  well-smoothed  text-book.^ 


dation  of  the  Committee  of  Seven  complain  of  the  length  of  the 
field  covered,  and  to  it  attribute  the  apparent  failure  of  the  teacher 
of  history  to  impress  upon  the  student  the  value  of  facts,  and  do 
not  feel  that  such  a  failure  is  due  to  the  emphasis  placed  by  the 
Report  upon  the  value  of  generalized  knowledge,  but  rather  be- 
lieve it  has  been  of  especial  value  in  leading  our  teachers  of  history 
to  develop  power  in  our  pupils." 


14  Teacher  and  Material 

It  is  not  difficult  for  a  teacher  to  watch  his  charges 
narrowly  as  they  move  along  from  one  rigid  para- 
graph to  the  next.  If  the  pupils  ask  no  questions, 
the  teacher  is  in  no  imminent  danger  of  teUing  un- 
truths. But  if  history  is  to  be  a  study  of  actual 
educational  value  and  culture,  if  the  boy  and  girl 
are  to  be  given  insight  into  social  life,  some  real 
sense  of  time  and  movement,  and,  above  all,  inter- 
est, vital  interest,  in  books  and  facts,  the  teacher 
must  have  character,  enthusiasm,  and  knowledge. 
Because  we  believe  so  profoundly  in  the  helpfulness 
of  historical  study,  the  necessity  of  bringing  the 
pupils  to  see  the  world  about  them  as  the  product 
of  past  ages,  the  value  of  learning  to  handle  books 
and  to  think  and  speak  clearly,  —  not  alone  of  quan- 
tities in  algebra  or  of  facts  in  physics,  but  of  human 
doings,  —  we  wish  here  distinctly  to  state  our  belief 
that  all  questions  of  curriculum  are  comparatively 
insignificant.  The  schools  have  a  right  to  demand 
teachers  that  are  prepared  to  teach  history  and  have 
the  ability  and  the  spirit  to  teach  it  right.  Public 
schools,  supported  by  taxation,  that  are  content 
with  the  old  idea  that  anybody  can  teach  history, 
that  anybody  can  trace  the  line  of  life  through  the 
past  and  give  his  pupils  the  spark  of  interest  and 
the  fire  of  useful  knowledge,  have,  in  our  opinion, 
a  distorted  conception  of  their  responsibility.  The 
great  demand  of  the  day  is  for  teachers  that  have 


School  Equipment  15 

themselves  inhaled  the  breath  of  enthusiasm,  and 
that  have  knowledge,  skill,  and  force. 

No  one  knows  better  than  the  members  of  the 
Committee  how  hard  it  is  to  have  adequate  knowl- 
edge and  to  combine  with  knowledge  an  unfailing  y' 
supply  of  interest  and  courage.  We  know  too  that 
a  great  deal  of  good  work  is  being  done.  But  the 
fact  remains  that  there  is  a  need  for  more  good 
teachers ;  the  schools  need  far  better  equipment ; 
and  the  teachers  need  more  time  to  prepare  their  les- 
sons, to  seek  out  illustrative  material,  and  to  direct 
the  study  of  their  pupils.  Excellent  as  are  the 
texts  that  have  appeared  in  recent  years,  they  cannot 
take  the  place  of  teachers  well  trained  in  history ; 
the  poorly  equipped  teacher  may  nullify  the  re- 
sults to  be  derived  from  the  best  texts. 

Most  schools  are  badly  in  need  of  equipment  for 
doing  their  work  right.  Teachers  of  history,  when 
contrasted  with  the  teachers  of  science,  have  been 
modest  in  their  requests.  In  most  schools  the  pro- 
vision for  sound  and  substantial  work  in  history 
is  quite  inadequate.  Good  wall  maps,  large,  framed 
photographs  of  historical  remains  and  historical 
places,  a  good  working  general  library,  a  small 
classroom  library  with  duplicate  copies  of  the 
most  important  works,  lantern  slides,  which  can 
if  necessary  be  shown  with  an  inexpensive  and 
portable    lantern,   cheap    pictures    and    reprints 


.f 


i6  Four  Years'  Course 

of  interesting  sources  for  illustration  and  for  special 
study,  —  these  are  necessities  in  a  school  that  ex- 
pects the  best  results.  The  history  teacher  is  as 
much  entitled  to  helpful  apparatus  as  the  science 
teacher  is  to  the  expensive  appliances  of  his  labora- 
tory. In  history,  as  in  science,  pupils  must  learn 
facts,  and  learn  also  to  do  things  and  see  things  for 
themselves ;  but  if  they  are  to  get  the  best  training, 
if  they  are  to  study  history  to  the  best  advantage, 
they  must  have  the  tools  with  which  to  work  and 
the  opportunity  to  use  the  tools  they  have.  A 
room  devoted  to  history,  a  room  well  stocked  with 
such  materials  as  pupils  can  use  and  enjoy,  will 
some  day,  and  we  hope  soon,  be  considered  as  in-  t\il 
dispensable  as  the  laboratory  in  the  well-equipped  \(Vr 
school.  v^ 

V.   The  Four-year  Course  and  the  Three- 
year  Course 

Ten  or  eleven  years  ago  when  the  Committee  of 
Seven  was  at  work,  circulars  were  widely  distrib- 
uted and  the  returns  carefully  examined.  At 
that  time  one-half  of  the  schools  answering  the  cir- 
culars reported  a  course  in  general  history;  i.e. 
they  sought  to  cover  the  field  of  universal  history  in 
six  months  or  a  year.  The  Committee  of  Seven 
in  its  Report  strongly  combated    the    idea  that 


General  History  17 

pupils  could  profitably  be  carried  over  the  whole 
field  in  a  single  year.  Earnestly  advocating  the 
advisability  of  studying  the  whole  period  where 
possible,  the  Report  recommended  that  four  years 
be  devoted  to  the  subject  and  the  whole  fieM  be 
divided  into  blocks  or  periods,  each  to  be  recognized 
as  a  unit  for  college  entrance.  Each  block  appeared 
to  be  brief  enough  to  give  ample  opportunity  for- 
real  history  work,  for  a  study  of  men  and  of  con- 
crete facts. 

As  we  have  shown  in  considering  the  replies  to 
our  circulars  and  in  an  attempt  to  state  briefly 
what  the  general  situation  is,  there  has  been  a 
tendency  to  accept  these  recommendations.  Blocks 
or  periods  of  history  not  dissimilar  to  those  marked 
out  by  the  Committee  of  Seven  are  commonly  used. 
We  are  at  the  present  time,  however,  occasionally 
confronted  with  complaints  and  desires  that  are  of 
exactly  opposite  character.  Occasionally  a  teacher, 
more  frequently,  we  believe,  a  superintendent  not 
actually  engaged  in  history  teaching,  advocates 
the  retention  or  the  reestablishment  of  the  short 
course  in  general  history;  on  the  other  hand,  one 
sometimes  hears  the  declaration  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  cover  the  period  of  the  world's  history  in 
four  years.  The  first  complaint  arises  from  a 
sense  of  the  desirability  of  a  comprehensive  view 
of  the  whole  field ;   the  other,  from  an  appreciation 


1 8  Four  Years'  Course 

of  the  difficulty  of  teaching  well  and  wisely  when  the 
field  is  broad  and  long. 

It  is  not  our  intention  to  discuss  anew  the  inad- 
visability  of  adopting  the  short  course  in  general 
history ;  that  matter  is  fully  and,  we  believe,  con- 
vincingly treated  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
of  Seven.  It  is  conceivable  that  some  teachers, 
under  advantageous  conditions,  with  some  students, 
may  after  a  fashion  cover  the  whole  course  of  the 
world's  history  in  a  single  year ;  but  it  appears  to 
us  as  a  general  thing  altogether  unwise  to  make  the 
attempt.  Such  a  conclusion  appears  unavoidable 
for  many  reasons,  but  chiefly  for  the  reason  that 
there  are  many  things  to  be  gained  from  historical 
study  besides  a  comprehensive  view  and  equally 
proportioned  knowledge ;  and  even  if  such  a  view 
and  such  knowledge  could  be  secured  by  the  study 
of  general  history  in  a  single  year,  perspective  and 
proportion  would  be  acquired  at  the  expense  of 
what  is  much  more  valuable  —  training  and  insight 
and  comprehension. 

That  the  fields  marked  out  by  the  Committee  of 
Seven  are  too  extensive  for  four  years'  study  is,  it 
appears,  the  belief  of  some  teachers.  At  least  we 
find  one  experienced  and  learned  college  teacher 
saying  that  the  Committee  of  Seven  ''unintention- 
ally perpetrated  a  pleasantry  on  the  teaching 
world."     This  pleasantry  is  said  to  consist  in  the 


Omission  and  Emphasis  19 

declaration  that  it  is  possible  to  cover  the  entire 
range  of  history  from  early  Grecian  times  to  the 
present  day  in  four  years.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
pleasantry  might  more  justly  be  considered  as  an 
effort  to  persuade  schools  to  give  up  the  attempt 
to  accomplish  this  task  in  a  single  year.  Teachers 
were  advised  by  the  Report  to  accept  the  four- 
period  system,  and,  if  only  three  years  were  avail- 
able, either  to  omit  one  of  the  periods  entirely  or  to 
combine  two  of  them  into  one.  Objections  to  the 
plan  of  covering  general  history  in  four  years  are 
probably  indications  of  progress,  or,  at  all  events, 
of  a  desire  to  give  thorough  work,  to  require  or 
induce  extensive  reading,  and  to  allow  the  free  use 
of  illustrative  material.  But  whether  these  objec- 
tions are  signs  of  progress  or  not,  they  appear  to  be 
ill-founded.  More  than  four  years  cannot  be  used 
in  the  great  majority  of  schools,  and  when  so 
much  time  is  devoted  to  history  it  is  quite  within 
the  range  of  sense  and  possibility  to  cover  general 
history  and  to  teach  the  subject  well. 

The  trouble,  if  there  be  any,  lies  in  the  fact  that 
teachers  complaining  of  the  inadequacy  of  a  four 
years'  course  in  general  history,  or  asserting  that 
the  blocks  or  periods  marked  out  by  the  Committee 
of  Seven  are  too  long  and  cumbersome,  try,  or  think 
they  are  expected  to  try,  to  cover  the  whole  range 
of  history  with  a  layer  of  information  of  uniform 


20  Four  Years'  Course 

thickness.  They  do  not  understand  that  in  going 
over  a  field  they  can,  by  wise  omissions  and  clever 
condensations,  here  and  there,  gain  the  time  and  the 
chance  to  plough  deeper  in  some  portions  than  in 
others.  No  one  can  seriously  propose  that,  in  four 
years,  pupils  be  taught  everything  that  can  be 
learned;  and  in  our  opinion  stress  to-day  comes 
largely  from  text-books  that  are  loaded  with  unnec-  \ 
essary  facts,  from  this  feeling  that  omission  and 
condensation  are  culpable,  and  perhaps,  too,  from 
such  college  entrance  examinations  as  make  it 
necessary  to  teach  all  that  a  text  contains.  When 
a  school  offers  its  pupils  the  opportunities  of  a 
four  years'  history  course,  it  does  not  appear  neces- 
sary to  omit  treatment  of  any  great  period  in  the 
world's  history  in  order  to  get  substantial  results. 
But  even  with  such  a  course  the  teacher  must  use 
discrimination,  be  ready  to  omit  unnecessary  and 
unedifying  details,  pass  over  unappetizing  and 
unnourishing  narrative,  and  emphasize  and  illus- 
trate the  portions  of  the  field  that  are  specially 
'  worthy  of  study  and  thought.  This  process  of 
omission  and  condensation,  of  emphasis  and  clari- 
fication, of  dwelling  with  interest  and  sympathy 
on  what  most  deserves  interest  and  sympathy,  is  the 
process  which  tries  the  teacher's  soul,  but  it  is  the 
essential  element  of  good  teaching  —  if  good  teach- 
ing can  justly  be  called  a  matter  of  method  at  all. 


J 


Treatment  21 

Unfortunately  the  schools  do  not  by  any  means  \    ,. 
universally  offer  four  years  of  history.     There  are^ 
many  schools  that  offer  but  three  years,  and  witfi  / 
this  allotment  of  time  many  teachers  must  be  con-  [ 
tent.     If  only  three  years  are  available,  how  shalr 
they  be  used?     That  is  a  question  much  more 
troublesome  than  the  proper  distribution  of  studies 
under  the   four-year  scheme.      There  appears   to 
be  positively  no  agreement  concerning  what  should 
be  given  or  what  omitted,   although  in  general, 
probably,  the  problem  is  solved  by  the  omission 
of  a  whole  period  or  section  of  history,  such   as 
ancient  or  English,  rather  than  by  any  system  of 
condensation  or  combination.     Of  course  the  plan 
of  merely  omitting  all  consideration  of  some  one 
block  is  the  simplest,  and  in  many  instances  it  must 
be  the  wisest  plan,  for  to  attempt  condensation  or 
the  rapid  survey  of  a  wide  period  cannot  be  profit- 
able if  the  teacher  is  inexperienced  or  if  he  has  not 
the  opportunity  to  make  thorough  and  thoughtful 
preparation.     This  is  especially  true  because  texts 
are  not   commonly  arranged  for  the  three  years' 
scheme. 

We  are  not-  ready,  however,  to  assert  that  the 
course  of  the  world's  history  can  in  no  case  be  cov- 
ered intelligently  and  effectively  in  three  years,  and 
that  the  only  thing  to  do  is  to  drop  bodily  out  of 
sight  some  great  and  important  section.     The  ex- 


22  Three  Years'  Course 

perienced   teacher  may  find  it  quite  possible   to 
trace   the  main  development  and   to  gather   the 
main  lessons,  and  to  accomplish  the  task  without 
studying  mere  mechanical  outlines  on  the  one  hand 
or  struggling  with  philosophic  generalizations  on 
the  other.     This  task  must  be  performed  by  the 
wisest  and  most  discriminating  selection  of  the  im- 
portant and  by  the  skilful  subordination  of  the  un- 
essential ;  and  it  must  be  performed,  too,  without 
losing  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  pupil  must  be  so 
taught  that  he  touches  particulars.     The  second- 
ary pupil  must  deal  with  real  facts  and  with  real 
men,   with  institutions   as  men  worked  in   them 
and  with  them ;  he  must  have  time  to  think  and 
read  as  well  as  to  learn.     We  must  not  forget  thaTN 
history  merits  a  place  in  the  curriculum  because  / 
of  its  distinctly  educational  value ;  by  it  the  pupil  / 
learns  how  the  toil  and  labor  of  the  past  gener-i 
ations  made  the  present;   he  learns  to  read  and/^ 
think    of    social    problems.     Such    ends    are    not\ 
attained  by  any  unreal  and  impersonal  treatment  j 
of  institutions  and  processes,  or  by  the  memori^-^ 
ing  of  chronological  outlines. 

It  would  be  inappropriate  to  attempt  here  any 
ample  illustration  of  the  process  of  condensation 
and  elimination  that  might  be  suitable  for  a  three 
years'  course.  That  process  can  be  accomplished 
only  by  the  skilful  text- writer  or  by  the  wise  teacher 


Treatment  23 

in  the  classroom.  We  do  suggest,  however,  that  if 
it  seems  wise  to  omit  any  detailed  study  of  ancient 
history  and  to  give  the  three  years  substantially  to 
the  other  three  blocks,  the  teacher,  while  omitting 
all  detail,  may  still  attempt  to  give  his  pupils 
some  idea  of  the  growth  of  the  ancient  nations,  and 
some  idea  of  their  achievements  and  their  qualities. 
Hurried  and  unsatisfactory  as  such  treatment 
must  be,  it  need  not  be  profitless;  the  pupil  need 
not  enter  upon  the  study  of  mediaeval  history  with 
no  appreciation  of  antiquity.  The  essentials  of 
Greek  civilization  can  be  pointed  out  with  con- 
siderable distinctness;  the  pupil  can  learn  with 
some  clearness  the  main  steps  by  which  Rome 
encircled  the  Mediterranean  and  established  her 
far-reaching  dominion ;  he  can  get  some  knowledge 
of  the  most  salient  facts  in  Roman  organization 
and  government.  For  such  study  time  must  be 
gained  by  elimination  and  condensation,  chiefly 
in  the  treatment  of  the  thousand  years  of  English 
and  Continental  history  that  come  before  the  age 
of  discovery.  In  many  cases,  probably,  the  teacher 
will  have  to  give  this  introductory  survey  by  oral 
instruction. 

If,  in  a  three  years'  course,  ancient  history  be 
given  as  usual  in  the  four-year  curriculum,  con- 
densation and  elimination  must  of  course  be  at- 
tempted in  other  fields.     The  mediaeval  field  must 


24  Ancient  History 

then  be  treated  as  only  introductory  to  the  latei 
time,  and  only  those  facts  can  be  dwelt  upon  that 
conspicuously  aid  in  a  comprehension  of  the  modern 
era.  If  the  second  year's  work  is  general  Euro- 
pean history,  the  teacher  will  seek  to  give  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  most  striking  facts  in  the  development 
of  England.  If  European  history  is  omitted, 
English  history  should  be  so  taught  as  to  bring 
out  the  chief  phases  of  the  general  European  en- 
vironment. The  omission  of  American  history 
does  not  seem  in  any  case  to  be  advisable,  and 
probably  in  no  three-year  schedule  can  the  time 
allotted  to  it  be  materially  shortened  —  its  lessons 
are  too  immediate,  its  content  is  too  valuable. 
And  yet  even  here  it  may  be  quite  possible  to  teach 
certain  portions  of  colonial  history  in  connection 
with  English  history,  and  thus  to  bring  out  the 
great  fact  of  England's  expansion,  as  well  as  some 
of  the  essentials  of  her  growth. 

VI.   Ancient  History 

The  Committee  of  Seven  recommended  that  an- 
cient history  should  be  taken  as  one  field  of  study. 
The  schools  were  advised,  instead  of  giving  sepa- 
rate and  detached  courses  in  Greek  and  Roman 
history,  to  give  a  single  course  covering  the  history 
of  both  peoples.     The    Committee  believed   that 


Oriental  Background  25 

the  time  had  come  when  ancient  history  might 
"  be  studied  independently  as  an  interesting,  in- 
structive, and  valuable  part  of  the  history  of  the 
human  race,"  and  not  merely  as  a  sort  of  appendix 
to  the  languages  of  Greece  and  Rome.  There  ap- 
peared to  be  abundant  reason  for  treating  the  field 
as  one  field  and  not  dividing  it  into  two,  as  if  the 
nations  of  antiquity  hved  and  walked  in  isolated 
grandeur,  and  as  if  Greek  history  ended  before 
Rome  began.  There  appeared  then,  and  there 
appears  now,  every  reason  for  studying  the  history 
of  the  ancient  world  as  one  subject  in  schools,  and 
the  whole  tendency  of  scholarly  investigation  is  in 
the  same  direction.  On  this  point,  fortunately, 
there  appears  to  be  no  material  difference  of  opinion 
among  competent  teachers  of  history. 

As  a  means  of  securing  this  br®ader  study  of 
ancient  history  and  placing  Greek  and  Roman 
history  in  its  proper  setting,  the  Committee  of 
Seven  advocated  a  brief  introductory  survey  of 
Oriental  history,  in  order  that  students  should  not 
be  dropped  into  Greek  history  without  appreciation 
of  the  fact  that  thousands  of  years  of  recorded 
history  had  already  passed  over  the  world  and  made 
important  contributions  to  its  civilization.  This 
survey  was  urged  ''as  an  indispensable  background 
for  the  study  of  the  classical  peoples,"  but  it  has 
not  always  been  understood  that  it  should  be  given 


26  Ancient  History- 

only  as  a  background,  and  ought  in  no  case  to  in- 
volve a  memorizing  of  dynasties  or  even  a  continu- 
ous narration.  What  such  a  course  should  contain 
is  excellently  stated  b}^  the  Committee  of  Seven, 
and  the  present  Committee  sees  no  reason  for 
modifying  that  recommendation  :  "It  should  aim  to 
give  (a)  an  idea  of  the  remoteness  of  these  Oriental 
beginnings,  of  the  length  and  reach  of  recorded 
history;  (b)  a  definite  knowledge  of  the  names, 
location,  and  chronological  succession  of  the  early 
Oriental  nations;  (c)  the  distinguishing  features 
of  their  civilizations,  as  concretely  as  possible;  (d) 
the  recognizable  lines  of  their  influence  on  later 
times."  The  statement  of  the  Committee  of 
Seven  that  this  survey  should  not  exceed  one- 
eighth  of  the  entire  time  devoted  to  ancient  history 
has  sometimes  been  interpreted  as  meaning  that 
one-eighth  of  a  year  is  a  minimum,  whereas  in 
our  opinion  it  should  occupy  distinctly  less  than 
that  amount  of  time.  Fortunately  the  treatment  of 
this  field  in  the  text-books  has  greatly  improved 
since  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Seven  was 
written,  and  the  better  texts  now  offer  a  wise 
guidance  in  the  selection  and  emphasis  of  facts 
concerning  the  Oriental  period. 

As  a  further  means  of  unifying  ancient  history 
and  breaking  down  the  traditional  isolation  of 
Greece  and  Rome,  the  Committee  of  Seven  recom- 


Constitutional  History  27 

mended  emphasis  upon  the  Hellenistic  period,  as 
the  age  when  Greek  civilization  spread  over  the 
East  and  when  Greece  and  Rome  were  drawn 
together,  and  upon  the  Roman  Empire  as  the 
culmination  of  ancient  history  and  the  starting- 
point  of  later  development.  These  recommen- 
dations in  themselves  seem  to  have  met  with 
little  criticism,  but  there  has  been  a  widespread 
complaint  that  they  cannot  be  carried  out  in 
schools  in  the  time  available  for  the  study  of  ancient 
history.  The  cup  of  Greek  and  Roman  history 
was  already  full,  and  nothing  could  be  added.  In 
one  sense  the  kernel  of  this  objection  is  perfectly 
sound ;  what  is  needed  is  not  so  much  more  time 
for  this  course,  as  a  radical  revision  of  its  subject- 
matter  in  the  light  of  the  progress  of  historical 
investigation  and  the  results  of  classroom  experi- 
ence. The  content  of  the  course  is  still  too  largely 
shaped  by  the  tradition  which  made  it  the  hand- 
maid to  the  study  of  certain  classical  authors  and 
filled  it  with  military  and  constitutional  detail 
without  regard  to  larger  historical  perspective; 
and  too  little  attention  has  been  paid  to  selecting 
and  dwelling  only  on  such  facts  as  can  be  clearly 
apprehended  by  pupils  at  the  age  when  the  subject 
is  usually  studied.  Thus  for  those  who  have  as 
yet  scarcely  any  acquaintance  witli  their  own  gov- 
ernment, the  attempt  is  made  to  teach  the  early 


28  Ancient  History 

constitutional  development  of  Athens  and  Rome, 
subjects  which  are  obscure  and  diffcult  even  for 
maturer  students  and,  at  least  in  the  case  of  Rome, 
are  usually  presented  in  accordance  with  outgrown 
views  of  historical  study.  We  can  see  no  useful 
purpose  that  is  served  at  this  stage  by  comparing 
the  Solonian  and  Draconian  legislation  or  learning 
the  details  of  the  Valerio-Horatian  laws. 

Young  pupils  entering  upon  a  new  and  compli- 
cated field  of  study  should  commonly  be  taught 
something  of  the  statics  of  government  before  its 
dynamics  receive  much  attention;  the  workings  of  a 
political  system  at  a  given  period  should  precede 
the  tracing  of  constitutional  development.  In 
the  study  of  Athenian  history  in  the  secondary 
school,  the  early  development  should  be  disregarded 
and  effort  concentrated  upon  the  actual  workings 
of  Athenian  democracy  in  the  Periclean  age.  Like- 
wise in  Roman  history  no  attempt  should  be  made 
to  reconstruct  the  institutions  of  the  regal  period 
or  the  supposed  history  of  the  struggle  between 
the  orders.  The  teacher  will  do  well  if  he  leaves 
a  clear  understanding  of  the  government  of  the 
republic  in  the  period  of  the  Punic  wars,  the  char- 
acter of  the  provincial  system,  the  constitutional 
issues  of  the  later  republic,  the  changes  introduced 
by  Augustus,  and  the  nature  of  the  later  empire. 
Throughout  the  study  of   ancient   history  much 


The  Limits  29 

better  results  would  be  secured  by  fuller  and  more 
descriptive  study  of  significant  epochs,  at  the 
expense  of  much  chronological  narration  once 
deemed  important.  Historically  as  well  as  ped- 
agogically,  for  example,  it  would  be  far  better  to 
begin  the  study  of  Roman  history  where  our  actual 
knowledge  begins,  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century 
B.C.,  and  give  a  brief  account  of  the  Romans,  their 
life  and  government  and  how  they  conquered  Italy, 
leaving  for  more  advanced  study  the  difficult  prob- 
lems of  the  reconstruction  of  early  Roman  history 
from  the  legends  and  the  guesses  of  the  later 
Romans.  By  beginning  at  this  point  the  natural 
connection  with  Greek  history  is  made  in  the  war 
with  Pyrrhus,  and  the  struggle  with  Carthage  be- 
comes, what  it  should  be,  a  piece  of  Mediterranean 
rather  than  of  local  Italian  history.  If  it  is 
thought  desirable  to  give  in  the  secondary  school 
some  of  the  legends  of  early  Rome,  they  can  be  in- 
troduced here  as  illustrating  the  character  and  ideals 
of  the  Romans  and  their  beliefs  concerning  Rome's 
past. 

The  suggestion  of  the  Committee  of  Seven 
which  has  attracted  the  most  attention  is  the  one 
advising  the  continuation  of  ancient  history  down 
to  800  A.D.  The  reasons  for  this  recommendation 
are  apparently  these :  (i)  such  an  arrangement 
shortens  the  period  that  follows;    the  great  field 


30  Ancient  History 

of  mediaeval  and  modern  history  is  made  more 
manageable ;  (2)  to  break  off  the  history  of  Rome 
abruptly  at  476  or  at  any  previous  time  is  to  leave 
the  old  impression  that  Rome  actually  fell  and 
disappeared,  while  one  of  the  most  important  facts 
in  history  is  the  continuing  influence  of  the  eternal 
city;  (3)  ^Ho  break  off  with  the  year  476  is  to 
leave  the  pupil  in  a  world  of  confusion  —  the 
invasions  only  begun,  the  church  not  fully  organ- 
ized, the  empire  not  fully, '  fallen,' "  ;  (4)  in  the  light 
of  the  way  in  which  Roman  history  was  not  in- 
frequently taught,  —  as  if  with  the  daggers  of 
Cassius  and  Brutus,  or  at  best  with  the  burial  of 
Augustus  or  the  unsaintly  Tiberius,  the  greatness 
of  Rome  were  gone,  —  it  is  especially  desirable  that 
connection  be  made  between  the  history  of  Rome 
and  the  beginning  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  that  the 
tale  should  not  be  stopped  without  pointing  to  the 
appearance  on  the  western  horizon  of  states  and 
systems  which,  in  some  measure,  relying  on  the 
traditions  of  Roman  order  and  the  inheritance  of 
her  law,  were  to  form  the  foundation  not  only  of 
mediaeval  but  of  modern  Europe. 

These  reasonings  appear  to  us  on  the  whole  sound, 
and  the  -great  majority  of  schools  seem  to  have 
accommodated  themselves  to  this  plan  of  prolonging 
the  study  of  ancient  history  into  the  earlier  Middle 
Ages.    While,  however,  we  find  ourselves  in  accord 


i 


The  Limits  31 

with  the  Committee  of  Seven  on  this  much-debated 
point,  we  believe  that  the  matter  requires  further 
and  more  specific  explanation.  Many  school- 
masters and  examiners  have  interpreted  this  rec- 
ommendation as  demanding  as  intensive  a  study 
of  the  period  from  Constantine  to  Charlemagne  as 
is  commonly  given  to  the  later  republic  and  the 
early  empire,  and  this  misconception  has  naturally 
led  to  a  protest  against  the  possibiHty  of  crowding 
such  an  amount  of  additional  matter  into  a  year' 
already  full.  The  difficulty  has  been  rendered 
acute  in  many  schools  through  the  practice  of  the 
College  Entrance  Examination  Board  of  setting 
questions  on  the  later  period  which  could  be  an- 
swered only  as  the  result  of  somewhat  detailed 
study.  Such  an  interpretation  of  the  Committee's 
recommendation  seems  to  us  not  only  out  of  har- 
mony with  the  spirit  of  its  Report,  but  contrary  to 
sound  h!storical  teaching,  and  we  desire  to  set  forth 
more  fully  our  views  on  this  subject.  ^ 

No  period  of  history  can  properly  be  taught  ■ , 
without  some  reference  to  what  precedes  and  what  ] 
follows;  and  no  course  on  ancient  history,  however  / 
elementary,  ought  to  omit  some  reference  to  the 
Middle  Ages  which  came  after,  as  well  as  to  the 
Oriental  nations  which  went  before.  If  the  Roman 
empire  is  in  any  sense  the  "great  central  fact  in  the 
history  of  nations,"  the  pupil  niust  be  led  to  under- 


32  Ancient  History 

stand  its  central  position  by  seeing,  not  only  its 
origin,  but  its  influence  on  later  times.  He  must 
be  shown  that  Rome  did  not  ''fall"  in  any  one 
year,  but  that  by  a  process  of  change  the  ancient 
world  gradually  disappeared  and  a  new  mediaeval 
world  took  its  place.  To  stop  the  study  of  ancient 
history  in  i8o  or  395  or  476  is  inevitably  to  give  the 
impression  that  ancient  history  ends  at  this  point 
and  in  some  way  stands  apart  from  the  subsequent 
history  of  the  world.  There  is,  on  the  other  hand, 
nothing  peculiarly  sacred  in  the  year  800.  It  is 
simply  a  convenient  stopping  place  from  which  the 
student  can  look  back  and  see  by  contrasting  the 
empire  of  Charlemagne  with  that  of  Augustus 
something  of  the  process  by  which  the  ancient  world 
was  transformed  into  the  mediaeval.  Some  teachers 
may  perhaps  succeed  in  accomplishing  the  same 
end  by  stopping  with  the  death  of  Justinian;  others, 
especially  where  no  specific  study  of  mediaeval 
history  is  to  follow,  may  wish  to  carry  their  classes 
still  farther  in  the  effort  to  establish  a  connection 
between  ancient  and  modern  times.  The  main 
point  is  that  these  transitional  centuries  should  be 
used  to  round  out  the  view  of  ancient  history  and 
show  its  relations  to  modern. 

Similarly  in  the  study  of  mediaeval  history  it  will 
be  necessary  to  treat  this  same  period,  but  from  a 
different  point  of  view,  that  of  the  origins  of  mediae- 


/ 


Subjects  33 

val  civilization.  To  chop  European  history  in  two 
at  the  year  800  is  not  much  better  than  to  chop 
it  in  two  at  476,  for  the  result  is  to  violate  historical 
continuity  and  give  a  factitious  importance  to  a  date 
which  should  serve  merely  as  an  historical  con- 
venience. 

The  period  between  Constantine  and  Charle- 
magne, being  neither  wholly  ancient  nor  wholly 
mediaeval,  should  accordingly  be  studied  both  in 
the  course  on  ancient  history  and  in  that  on 
mediaeval  and  modern  history,  but  it  should  be  ap- 
proached in  each  case  from  a  different  point  of  view. 
In  the  course  on  ancient  history  the  emphasis  should 
be  put  upon  the  Roman  elements.  In  studying  the 
later  empire  attention  should  be  given  to  those 
elements  which  remained  rather  than  to  those 
which  perished,  —  to  the  power  and  influence  of 
the  emperor  as  determining  the  persistence  of 
the  imperial  ideal;  to  the  Roman  law;  to  the 
Latin  language;  and  to  the  local  life  of  the  civitas 
and  the  villa.  Christianity  should  be  studied 
particularly  in  its  relations  to  Rome  as  seen  in  its 
establishment  as  a  state  religion,  its  organization 
as  modelled  on  the  local  organization  of  the 
empire,  with  the  bishop  as  the  centre  of  the  reli- 
gious life  of  the  civitas,  and  its  absorption  of  the 
Roman  culture  which  it  was  to  transmit  to  the 
Middle   Ages.     The    Germanic    invasions    should 

D 


34  Ancient  History 

likewise  be  taken  up  primarily  in  relation  to  the 
overthrow  of  the  Roman  empire;  no  attempt 
should  be  made  to  follow  the  migrations  in  detail, 
but  the  history  of  a  single  people,  such  as  the  Visi- 
goths, should  be  traced,  and  the  growth  and  extent 
of  the  Frankish  empire  should  be  made  clear  as  a 
basis  for  a  description  of  conditions  of  western 
Europe  under  Charlemagne.  Attention  should 
carefully  be  called  to  the  continuation  of  the  empire 
in  the  East  and  to  the  part  of  the  Greek  empire  in 
perpetuating  Roman  law  and  in  civiHzing  eastern 
Europe,  but  its  narrative  history  should  not  be 
carried  beyond  the  time  of  Justinian.  Such  a 
tapering-off  of  Roman  history  cannot  fail  to  leave 
a  clear  impression  of  the  character  and  the  abiding 
importance  of  ancient  civilization. 

All  such  topics  should  of  course  be  treated  as 
simply  and  concretely  as  possible,  and  should 
require  but  a  small  number  of  exercises  at  the  close, 
of  the  year;  and  suitable  questions  upon  these 
should  find  a  place  in  examination  papers  on  ancient 
history.  Candidates  might,  for  example,  be  asked 
to  describe  city  life  in  the  Roman  empire;  to  show 
how  Christianity  was  made  tht  state  religion;  to 
give  a  brief  account  of  the  history  of  the  Visigoths; 
to  show  how  the  eastern  and  western  empires  be- 
came separated ;  to  explain  what  the  Corpus  Juris 
Civilis  is  and  mention  important  states  in  which 


Treatment  35 

its  influence  is  still  felt ;  to  name  the  countries 
which  speak  a  language  derived  from  the  Latin; 
to  trace  the  boundaries  of  Justinian's  or  Charle- 
magne's empire  as  compared  with  that  of  Augustus'. 
On  the  other  hand,  such  subjects  as  the  rise  and 
spread  of  Mohammedanism,  the  specific  institutions 
of  the  Germans  (such  as  the  comitatus  or  the  ordeal), 
monasticism,  and  the  history  of  the  Papacy,  while 
they  fall  chronologically  in  the  period  before  800, 
are  so  essentially  a  part  of  mediaeval  history  that  no 
examiner  or  board  of  examiners  should  put  ques- 
tions upon  them  in  a  paper  on  ancient  history. 
Topics  such  as  these,  whose  culminating  interest  is 
reached  in  mediaeval  times,  are  suitable  material 
for  questions  in  examinations  in  mediaeval  and 
modern  history. 

One  other  matter  needs  consideration  here. 
Some  teachers  declare  that  pupils  of  the  first  year 
are  too  immature  for  ancient  history.  If,  however, 
a  four  years'  course  is  to  be  given,  what  shall  be 
done  ?  Are  they  not  in  the  same  way  unprepared 
for  any  field  of  history  ?  Should  the  chronological 
order  advised  by  the  Committee  of  Seven  be  aban- 
doned and  some  other  field  given  the  first  year? 
Now  the  only  other  field  that  one  would  think  of  is 
probably  American  history,  and,  as  the  Report 
points  out,  if  American  history  were  substituted, 
this  would  mean  a  repetition  of  courses  usually 


36  Ancient  History 

given  in  the  later  years  of  the  elementary  school; 
the  work  could  not  be  conducted  on  a  plane  suffi- 
ciently advanced  to  be  justified.  If  American 
history  were  given  the  first  year,  it  would  probably 
involve  the  omission  of  the  more  advanced  work  in 
American  history,  and,  it  may  be,  of  civil  govern- 
ment, which  high  school  pupils  should  have  the 
chance  to  study  in  the  latter  part  of  the  course.^ 
If  a  three  years'  course  is  given,  of  course  the  work 
might  not  be  begun  until  the  second  year. 

The  only  possible  solution  appears  to  be  one  that 
is  not  on  the  whole  regrettable.  Ancient  history 
must  be  made  simpler  and  less  abstract;  more 
attention  must  be  paid  to  the  great  men,  less  to  the 
history  of  institutions;  more  time  must  be  given 
to  simple  studies  of  art  and  habits  of  life;  wars  that 
mean  nothing  must  be  omitted,  and  time  must  be 
gained  for  easy,  familiar  talks  and  lessons  about 
things  that  pupils  of  fourteen  can  understand. 
Constitutional  details  must  give  place  to  pictures 
and  to  stories  of  the  great  deeds  and  achievements  of 
antiquity.  An  attempt  to  show  just  how  this  can  / 
be  done  would  be  out  of  place  here.  There  is  an^ 
undoubted  demand  for  text-books  that  will  aid  the 
teachers  in  this  difficult  task ;   and  there  is  need  of 

*  Attention  may  be  here  called  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
of  Eight  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  dealing  with 
history  in  the  elementary  schools. 


College  Examination  37 

abundant  and  cheap  illustrative  material.  But 
the  task  must  rest  with  the  teacher.  Difficult  as 
it  is,  there  is  reason  for  thinking  that  it  will  be 
mastered.  We  feel  confidence  in  saying  that  there 
is  no  other  field  of  history  so  rich  in  materials  of 
human  interest  and  which  can  be  made  more  vivid 
and  comprehensible;  but  pupils  will  probably  not 
be  fired  to  enthusiasm  by  the  reforms  of  Clisthenes, 
the  duties  of  archons,  the  campaigns  of  the  Sam- 
nite  war,  or  the  technicalities  of  the  Roman  con- 
stitution.^ 

Such  treatment  as  we  suggest  may  not  meet  the 
requirements  of  entrance  examinations,  where  col- 
leges demand  a  year's  work  of  such  a  character  as 
may  be  done  in  the  later  years  of  the  high  school. 
But  we  cannot  see  our  way  to  advising  a  distortion 
of  the  school  course  in  general  because  of  the  exi- 

*  Reference  may  be  made  again  to  the  remark  in  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  of  Seven  as  to  the  fact  that  Caesar's  Commen- 
taries, loaded  down  with  all  sorts  of  antiquarian  information,  is 
put  into  the  hands  of  pupils  in  the  second  year  of  the  high 
school.  Boys  of  fifteen  are  often  reading  Xenophon.  If  a  boy 
of  fifteen  can  read  Csesar  in  the  original  intelligently,  can  one  of 
fourteen  not  understand  a  simple  story  of  ancient  life  in  the 
vernacular  ?  Beyond  all  question  the  complaint  concerning  the 
difiSculty  of  the  ancient  field  arises  from  a  feeling  that  the  teacher 
must  have  his  pupils  learn  things  that  are  ill  adapted  to  this 
stage  of  growth.  This  feeling  is  based  on  tradition  and  possibly 
on  a  difficulty  of  selecting  the  significant,  the  picturesque,  and  the 
comprehensible. 


38  "  Mere  Memory  " 

gencies  of  examination.  If  colleges  will  make 
such  demands,  many  schools  must  shape  their 
courses  accordingly.  We  believe,  however,  that 
it  is  unreasonable  for  colleges  to  demand  work  of 
such  a  character  that  it  can  be  done  only  in  the 
later  part  of  the  course  or  that  necessitates  taking 
the  work  over  again  in  the  fourth  year.  College 
entrance  examinations  should  be  arranged  with 
regard  to  the  normal  sequence  in  the  school  course. 
Schools  should  not  be  compelled  to  keep  subjects 
fresh  merely  for  examination  purposes,  nor,  after 
subjects  have  been  once  given  well,  should  it  be 
necessary  to  review  them  in  the  later  years  of  the 
high  school  merely  to  meet  college  requirements. 
Such  a  process  tends  to  a  hopeless  congestion  in  the 
last  year  and  makes  for  cramming  rather  than  real 
study.  Some  schools  may  be  forced  to  give  an 
ancient  history  course  in  the  later  years,  but  the 
great  body  of  boys  and  girls  will  get  what  they  most 
need  by  just  such  untechnical  famihar  study  as 
we  here  suggest,  and  there  is  no  peculiar  salvation 
for  their  souls  in  knowing  technical  constitutional 
organization  and  the  meaningless  detail  of  war. 

VII.    ''Mere  Memory" 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Seven  did  not 
emphasize  the  necessity  of  learning  historical  facts 


Historical  Thinking  39 

and  did  not  dwell  at  length  on  the  need  of  accuracy  >. 
and  precision.  As  far  as  methods  of  teaching  are  i 
concerned,  the  Report  disapproved  the  practice  of  [ 
confining  the  pupil's  work  and  interest  to  a  text-  * 
book,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  objected  to  the  ^'topi- 
cal method"  without  the  use  of  a  text,  because  by 
such  method  "it  is  difficult  to  hold  the  pupils  to  a 
definite  line  of  work"  and  because  ''there  is  danger 
of  incoherence  and  confusion."  The  Report  also 
included  definite  suggestions  concerning  method, 
and  discussed  at  considerable  length  the  value  of 
historical  study  as  well  as  the  aims  of  historical 
instruction.  The  present  Committee  does  not  find  / 
that  it  can  materially  alter  the  recommendations 
of  the  Report  in  these  particulars. 

If  history  teaching  results  only  in  the  memorizing 
of  a  modicum  of  bare  facts  in  the  order  in  which 
they  are  given  in  a  ,text,  there  is  not  much  to  be 
said'  in  .favor  of  the  retention  of  the  subject  as  an 
important  part  of  the  curriculum.  This  does  not 
mean  that  pupils  should  not  be  accurate,  painstak- 
ing, and  thorough;  it  means  that  in  addition  to 
learning,  and  learning  well,  a  reasonable  amount  of 
history  from  the  text,  the  pupil  should  gain  some- 
thing more:  he  should  learn  how  to  use  books  and 
how  to  read  them;  he  should  be  led  to  think  about 
historical  facts  and  to  see  through  the  pages  of 
the  book  the  life  with  which  history  deals;  he  may 


t 


40  "  Mere  Memory  " 

even  be  brought  to  see  the  relation  between  evi- 
dence and  historical  statement  in  simple  cases  where 
material  is  close  at  hand;  he  should  in  some  meas- 
ure get  thehistorical  state  of  mind. 

This  Committee  cannot  be  persuaded  that,  when 
a  pupil  can  be  induced  to  think,  and  not  merely 
learn  by  rote  in  other  subjects,  —  in  physics,  in 
Enghsh,  and  in  geometry,  —  he  cannot  think  in  his- 
tory without  being  in  peril  of  losing  hold  on  truth 
and  of  gaining  a  love  for  indistinctness  and  uncer- 
tainty. In  fact,  there  appear  to  be  two  essential'^ 
results  that  should  be  the  product  of  historical  ' 
study:  first,  a  firm,  hard  grasp  of  a  reasonable 
quantity  of  facts;  second,  a  sense  of  the  meaning 
of  historical  facts  and  historical  relations,  some 
aptitude  in  gleaning  knowledge  from  historical 
books,  some  appreciation  of  what  history  is,  some 
historical  imagination,  some  skill,  though  it  be  not 
great,  in  putting  together  the  facts  that  one  has 
learned.  The  Committee  does  not  need  to  be  told 
that  pupils  entering  college  have  a  marked  fondness 
for  vague  misinformation  about  the  essentials  of 
history.  But  surely  this  cannot  be  attributed  to 
the  endeavor  on  the  part  of  the  teacher  to  arouse 
interest,  to  stimulate  his  pupils  to  read,  to  incite 
them  to  think  and  not  merely  repeat  —  unless  in 
his  enthusiasm  he  forget  the  danger  of  discussion 
without  knowledge;  for  keen  debate  and  even  hard 


Comparison  41 

thinking,  without  a  basis  of  fact  for  thought,  un- 
questionably have  their  perils.     The  remedy  and 
the  control  are,  however,  in  the  teacher's  hands. 
It  is  all  a  matter  of  good  judgment  and  good  teach- 
ing.    On  either  side  there  is  difficulty  and  danger :  \ 
on  the  one  side,  slavish  adherence  to  a  text  and  the/ 
loss  of  interest  and  training;    on   the  other,  dis-/ 
traction,  incoherence,  vague  uncertainty,  and  pos-/ 
sibly  ignorant  enthusiasm.    'The  teacher  of  history 
has  an  incomparably  difficult  task*  but  we  believe 
that  a  reasonable  effort  should  be  made  to  get  the 
best  results  by  avoiding  both  of  these  extremes. 

In  a  great  many  ways  teachers  can  add  to  the 
value  of  their  work  even  when  there  is  paucity  of  / 
material  outside  the  text,  or  when  there  is  little  / 
time  for  collateral  reading.  Pupils  can  be  taught  / 
by  frequent  exercises,  both  oral  and  written,  to 
put  together  in  their  own  way  things  they  have 
learned  at  different  times  and  in  different  parts  of 
their  text-books ;  and,  while  this  will  develop  their 
power  in  handling  their  knowledge,  it  will  likewise 
strengthen  their  hold  on  what  has  been  taught 
them.  It  is  not  too  much  to  ask  an  intelligent  boy 
who  has  just  finished  the  reign  of  Edward  I  to 
gather  together  and  put  into  writing  what  he  has 
learned  about  the  growth  of  parliament  from  the 
time  of  the  Conquest.  It  is  not  too  much  to  ask 
one  who  has  been  studying  the  Napoleonic  wars 


42  "Mere  Memory" 

or  the  American  Revolution  what  other  wars  he 
has  studied  about  in  which  England  and  France 
were  opposed.  It  may  not  be  too  much  even  to 
ask  for  a  comparison  of  the  way  in  which  the  French 
overthrew  absolutism  in  the  Revolution,  with  the 
way  in  which  England  gained  her  free  constitution, 
if  the  pupil  has  already  learned  the  facts  and  been 
given  the  elements  of  comparison.  A  pupil  who 
has  been  going  over  American  history  should  be 
able  to  say  something  of  the  activities  of  John  C. 
Calhoun  or  of  Henry  Clay  or  to  compare  the  work 
of  the  two  statesmen,  if  he  has  already  learned  in 
various  parts  of  the  text  the  main  facts  which  he  is 
asked  to  put  together.  In  this  way  constant  re- 
view can  be  insured  and  continual  practice  in  using 
the  knowledge  he  has  gained.  Much  of  this  can  be 
done  without  extensive  collateral  reading. 

It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  of  Seven  emphasized  the  importance 
of  generalized  knowledge  and  minimized  the  im- 
portance of  memorized  facts.  If  we  may  judge 
by  the  information  frgm  various  sources,  to  which 
we  have  already  referred,  teachers  at  large  do  not 
believe  that  the  Report  erred  in  this  respect.  The 
expression  ''mere  memory,"  to  which  special  excep- 
tion was  taken,  does  not  appear  in  the  Report,  but 
in  certain  statements  emanating  from  the  College 
Entrance  Examination  Board  which  have  appar- 


Accuracy  43 

ently  been  transferred,  with  slight  verbal  alteration, 
to  some  college  catalogues.  We  do  not  feel  called 
upon  to  discuss  this  subject  at  length ;  our  general 
conclusions  are  sufficiently  presented  in  the  preced- 
ing paragraphs;  but  lest  there  be  a  mistake,  let 
us  say  expressly  that  the  pupil  should  get  more 
out  of  his  study  of  history  than  the  memory  of  ay 
certain  modicum  of  facts  which,  when  the  examina- 
tion comes,  he  can  faithfully  reproduce,  but  repro- 
duce only  in  the  exact  order  and  in  the  exact 
combination  in  which  they  appear  in  his  text. 

But  let  us  also  say,  with  equal  emphasis,  that 
pupils  must  be  taught  to  know  clearly,  strongly,' 
and  well  the  essential  facts  of  history ;  they  must 
be  taught  to  know  what  they  know  and  hold  fast 
to  what  they  have.  Whatever  else  we  may  do, 
we  are  certainly  not  succeeding  as  teachers  of  his- 
tory if  our  pupils  are  slovenly  and  inaccurate,  and 
if  at  the  end  of  their  study  they  know  but  little, 
and  that  vaguely.  There  may  be  some  consolation 
in  the  thought  that  the  uncertainty  with  which 
pupils  often  hold  their  inaccuracies  is  not  at  all 
confined  to  history^  The  condition  is  general,  in 
fact,  and  its  roots  lie  too  deep  to  be  attributed 
to  any  special  advice  from  any  one  committee  or 
to  any  method  of  instruction.  But  it  is  clearly 
our  duty  to  do  our  part  in  getting  accuracy  and 
certainty. 


44  Government 

VIII.    American  History  and  Government 

Much  discussion  has  recently  arisen  concerning 
the  study  of  government  and  the  relations  of  the 
subject  to  American  history.  A  committee  of  the 
American  Political  Science  Association  has  pre- 
pared and  published  a  report  on  the  matter.  It  enters 
very  fully  into  a  consideration  of  the  relationship 
of  the  two  studies  and  combats  the  recommen- 
dations, or  what  it  believes  to  be  the  recom- 
mendations, of  the  Committee  of  Seven.  Certain 
portions  of  that  report  appear  to  us  to  be  based  on  a 
misconstruction  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of 
Seven  and  to  underestimate  the  perfectly  just  and 
proper  combination  of  history  and  government. 
But  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  discuss  the  subject 
at  length.  The  purposes  of  the  two  associations 
cannot  be  hopelessly  at  variance,  and  a  discussion  in 
conflicting  reports  would,  at  the  best,  do  no  good. 
Both  associations  are  anxious  that  suitable  atten- 
tion should  be  given  the  subjects  in  which  they  are 
especially  interested,  and  each  is  ready,  we  are  sure, 
to  acknowledge  its  interest  in  the  special  field  of  the 
other;  for  government  and  political  ord^r  cannot 
be  disassociated  from  history;  and  the  historian 
that  has  no  appreciation  of  the  problems  of  modern 
government  and  of  modern  politics  may  lose  his 
history  in  scholasticism  or  antiquarianism. 


Previous  Recommendations  45 

When  the  Committee  of  Seven  reported,  there 
was  no  national  association  of  pohtical  scientists; 
the  Historical  Association  included  then,  as  indeed 
it  does  now,  many  teachers  of  government  and 
politics;  at  least  four  members  of  the  Committee 
of  Seven  had  for  years  taught  both  government 
and  history.  It  was  not  therefore  beyond  the 
province  of  that  Committee  to  make  suggestions 
about  teaching  government,  and  especially  to  speak 
of  the  connection  between  government  and  history. 
The  situation  is  now  considerably  changed;  the 
present  Committee  can  with  no  show  of  right  lay 
down  definite  regulations  or  explicit  recommenda- 
tions about  the  teaching  of  government  or  its  place 
in  the  curriculum.^  The  most  we  can  do  is  to 
present  our  views  of  the  relations  of  government  to 
history  and  make  proposals  for  adjustment  of  time 
and  proportional  emphasis. 

The  statements  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of 
Seven,  which  are  given  in  the  note  below,-  appear 

*  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  of  the  Committee  making  the 
present  Report,  only  one  is  not  a  member  of  the  American  Polit- 
ical Science  Association.  Mr.  Mann  was  also  a  member  of  that 
Association. 

2  "  Much  time  will  be  saved  and  better  results  obtained  if  his- 
tory and  civil  government  be  studied  in  large  measure  together, 
as  one  subject  rather  than  as  two  distinct  subjects.  We  are  sure 
that,  in  the  light  of  what  has  been  said  in  the  earlier  portions 
of  this  Report  about  the  desirabiUty  of  school  pupils  knowing 


46 


Government 


to  us  unexceptionable,  if  they  are  fairly  construed 
and  applied.  The  recommendations  were  far 
from  advising  that  civil  government  should  not  be 

their  political  surroundings  and  duties,  no  one  will  suppose  that 
in  what  we  here  recommend  we  underestimate  the  value  of 
civil  government  or  wish  to  lessen  the  effectiveness  of  the  study. 
What  we  desire  to  emphasize  is  the  fact  that  the  two  subjects  are 
in  some  respects  one,  and  that  there  is  a  distinct  loss  of  energy  in 
studying  a  small  book  on  American  history  and  afterward  a  small 
book  oil  civil  government,  or  vice  versa,  when  by  combining  the 
two  a  substantial  course  may  be  given." 

"  In  any  complete  and  thorough  secondary  course  in  these 
subjects,  there  must  be,  probably,  a  separate  study  of  civil  govern- 
ment, in  which  may  be  discussed  such  topics  as  municipal  govern- 
ment, state  institutions,  the  nature  and  origin  of  civil  society, 
some  fundamental  notions  of  law  and  justice,  and  like  matters ; 
and  it  may  even  be  necessary,  if  the  teacher  desires  to  give  a 
complete  course  and  can  command  the  time,  to  supplement  work 
in  American  history  with  a  formal  study  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  workings  of  the  national  government.  But  we  repeat  that 
a  great  deal  of  what  is  commonly  called  civil  government  can 
best  be  studied  as  a  part  of  history.  To  know  the  present  fofm 
of  our  institutions  well,  one  should  see  whence  they  came  and 
how  they  developed ;  but  to  show  origins,  developments,  changes, 
is  the  task  of  history,  and  in  the  proper  study  of  history  one  sees 
just  these  movements  and  knows  their  results." 

.  "  It  would  of  course  be  foolish  to  say  that  the  secondary  pupil 
can  trace  the  steps  in  the  development  of  all  our  institutions, 
laws,  political  theories,  and  practices;  but  some  of  them  he  can 
trace,  and  he  should  be  enabled  to  do  so  in  his  course  in  Ameri- 
can history.  How  it  came  about  that  we  have  a  federal  system 
of  government  rather  than  a  centralized  state;  what  were  the 
colonial  beginnings  of  our  systems  of  local  government;  how  the 
Union  itself  grew  into  being;  why  the  Constitution  provided 
against  general  warrants;  why  the  first  ten  amendments  were 


Relations  47 

given  adequate  attention  or  that  government  be 
distinctly  subordinated  to  history,  but  rather  that, 
especially  when  the  time  at  command  was  brief, 

adopted;  why  the  American  people  objected  to  bills  of  attainder 
and  declared  against  them  in  their  fundamental  law,  —  these, 
and  a  score  of  other  questions,  naturally  arise  in  the  study  of 
history,  and  an  answer  to  them  gives  meaning  to  our  Constitu- 
tion, Moreover,  the  most  fundamental  ideas  in  the  political 
structure  of  the  United  States  may  best  be  seen  in  a  study  of  the 
problems  of  history.  The  nature  of  the  Constitution  as  an  in- 
strument of  government,  the  relation  of  the  central  authority  to 
the  states,  the  theory  of  state  sovereignty  or  that  of  national 
unity,  the  rise  of  parties  and  the  growth  of  party  machinery,  — 
these  subjects  are  best  understood  when  seen  in  their  historical 
settings." 

'*  But  in  addition  to  this,  many,  if  not  all,  of  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  may  be  seen  in  the  study  of  history,  not  as  mere 
descriptions  written  on  a  piece  of  parchment,  but  as  they  are 
embodied  in  working  institutions.  The  best  way  to  understand 
institutions  is  to  see  them  in  action;  the  best  way  to  understand 
forms  is  to  see  them  used.  By  studying  civil  government  in 
connection  with  history,  the  pupil  studies  the  concrete  and  the 
actual.  The  process  of  impeachment,  the  appointing  power 
of  the  president,  the  make-up  of  the  cabinet,  the  power  of  the 
speaker,  the  organization  of  the  territories,  the  adoption  and 
purpose  of  the  amendments,  the  methods  of  annexing  territory,  the 
distribution  of  the  powers  of  government  and  their  working  re- 
lations, indeed  all  the  important  parts  of  the  Constitution  that 
have  been  translated  into  existing,  acting  institutions,  may  be 
studied  as  they  have  acted.  If  one  does  not  pay  attention  to 
such  subjects  as  these  in  the  study  of  history,  what  is  left  but 
wars  and  rumors  of  wars,  partisan  contentions,  and  meaningless 
details  ?  " 

"  We  do  not  advise  that  text-books  on  civil  government  be  dis- 
carded, even  when  there  is  no  opportunity  to  give  a  separate 


48  Government 

every  available  opportunity  be  used  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  interrelation  and  interdependence  of 
the  two  subjects.  But  if  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Seven  is  in  this  respect  at  all  ambiguous, 
we  desire  to  say  clearly  that  we  do  not  think  that 
the  two  subjects,  despite  their  interdependence, 
should  be  so  taught  as  to  crowd  out  government  or 
give  insufficient  time  for  its  proper  study.  More 
and  more  as  the  days  go  by  it  becomes  plain  that 
the  schools  have  the  clear  duty  of  giving  full  instruc- 
tion on  the  essentials  of  American  government  and 
practical  politics.  We  have  no  desire  to  under- 
estimate this  need  and  this  duty. 

We  still  think,  however,  that  much  that  is  com- 
monly called  government  as  distinguished  from 
history  can  be  taught  and  should  be  taught  as  part 
of  the  history  course.  To  separate  the  workings 
of  political  institutions  through  the  decades  of  the 
last  century  from  the  institutions  we  have  to-day, 

course  in  the  subject.  On  the  contrary,  such  a  book  should  always 
be  ready  for  use,  in  order  that  the  teacher  may  properly  illus- 
trate the  past  by  reference  to  the  present.  If  the  pupils  can 
make  use  of  good  books  on  the  Constitution  and  laws,  so  much 
the  better.  What  we  desire  to  recommend  is  simply  this,  that 
in  any  school  where  there  is  no  time  for  sound,  substantial  courses 
in  both  civil  government  and  history,  the  history  be  taught  in 
such  a  way  that  the  pupil  will  gain  a  knowledge  of  the  essentials 
of  the  political  system  which  is  the  product  of  that  history ;  and 
that,  where  there  is  time  for  separate  courses,  they  be  taught,  not 
as  isolated,  but  as  interrelated  and  interdependent  subjects." 


Separate  Treatment  49 

or  to  have  no  eye  for  the  fact  that  the  contests  of 
the  past  produced  what  we  have  to-day,  would  be 
entirely  without  justification.  Such  separation 
and  wilful  blindness  would  be  worse  than  profitless. 
A  proper  and  wise  correlation,  a  suitable  and  just 
treating  of  American  history,  must  have  the  result 
of  giving  clear  pictures  of  actual  institutions  of 
government  and  clear  ideas  of  their  workings. 
Much  of  our  national  constitutional  system  can 
thus  be  effectively  presented. 

It  is  clear,  however,  that  not  by  the  study  of 
American  history  alone  can  the  pupil  get  such  a 
knowledge  of  government  as  he  ought  to  have.  It 
is  especially  difficult  to  teach  the  state  constitutional 
system  or  local  government  in  connection  with  the! 
course  in  American  history,  and  it  is  almost  impos- 
sible to  bring  out  adequately  the  all-important 
facts  of  party  organization  and  the  workings  of 
party  machinery.  Such  subjects  seem  to  require 
distinct  and  separate  treatment,  and  their  signifi- 
cance in  the  daily  life  of  the  pupil  is  too  great  to 
justify  a  hurried  or  vague  treatment.  And  yet  it 
must  be  pointed  out  that  the  proper  presentation  of 
governmental  facts  in  the  history  course,  those 
facts  of  a  general  character  that  readily  and  natu- 
rally come  into  view,  does  not  detract  from  the  im- 
portance of  government;  such  presentation  only 
gives  more  time  for  the  proper  study  of  the  political 

£ 


50  Government 

situation,  the  problems  of  the  day,  the  intricacies 
of  party  methods,  the  make-up  of  local  govern- 
ment, and  such  other  things  as  demand  particular 
and  separate  study.  Moreover,  the  field  is  so  large, 
so  immediate,  and  so  important  that  every  avail- 
able advantage  must  be  taken  of  fair  and  just  oppor- 
tunity to  treat  government  and  history  as  related 
and  mutually  helpful  subjects  of  study. 

Here,  as  in  so  many  cases,  the  real  need  is  for  more 
time.  Probably  no  one  doubts  that  where  there  is 
ample  time  at  disposal  separate  courses  in  history 
and  government  should  be  established.  And  no 
one  can  fairly  doubt  that,  even  then,  they  should 
be  so  taught  as  to  take  advantage  of  relationships 
and  interdependence.  But  the  problem  becomes 
acute  when  time  is  brief,  and  condensation  is  imper- 
ative. How  much  time  should  be  given  to  the 
separate  study  in  government  ?  How  much  govern- 
ment must, be  taught,  and  taught  once  for  all,  in 
connection  with  history?  How  shall  the  time  be 
justly  distributed  between  the  two  ?  Now  perhaps 
we  do  quite  wrong  in  suggesting  palliatives,  in  pro- 
posing plans  that  may  soothe  school  administra- 
tors and  result  in  the  inadequate  or  improper  study 
of  American  history  and  government.  The  simple 
truth  is  that  these  subjects  should  be  given  the  time 
they  need  in  the  school  curriculum,  and  if  shearing 
and  clipping  must  be  done  somewhere,  let  the  opera- 


\ 


Colonial  History  51 

tion  be  applied  to  subjects  that  are  not  the  best 
and  most  immediate  subjects  for  preparing  boys  and 
girls  for  citizenship. 

We  are,  however,  confronted  by  a  condition  and 
not  a  theory  —  only  the  exceptional  school  will 
give  more  than  a  single  year  to  American  history 
and  government  late  in  the  course.  The  question 
of  distribution  and  arrangement  must  therefore 
receive  some  sort  of  an  answer.  Let  us,  however, 
before  suggesting  the  answer,  propose  an  alleviation 
of  the  pressure  on  the  last  year :  some  relief  may 
be  obtained  by  dealing  with  colonial  history  in 
connection  with  English  and  modern  European 
history.  If  this  is  done,  the  course  in  American  his- 
tory can  be  begun  with  a  rapid  survey  of  colonial 
history,  with  a  consideration  of  the  most  important 
colonial  achievements,  and  especially  with  a  picture 
of  conditions  and  institutions  in  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  This  proposal  is  discussed 
briefly  in  later  portions  of  the  report.  The  English 
background  of  American  history  is  of  great  value 
to  the  student  of  American  history ;  moreover, 
if  modern  history  be  taught,  as  suggested  in  suc- 
ceeding pages  of  this  report,  the  pupil  will  have 
as  a  background  for  his  study  of  America  some 
knowledge  of  European  government  and  institu- 
tions, and  will  have  at  least  some  idea  of  the  colonial 
expansion  of  Europe. 


52  Government 

The  distribution  of  time  between  government  and 
/'history  in  the  fourth  year  should,  we  beHeve,  be 
/  in  some  such  ratio  as  this  —  two-fifths  of  the  time 
may  be  given  to  separate  work  in  government 
and  three-fifths  to  the  course  in  history.  This 
arrangement  will  not  appear  to  all  teachers  as  ideal ; 
some  teachers  will  desire  more  time  for  history, 
others  more  time  for  government.  But  on  the 
whole  the  distribution  appears  to  be  the  best  that 
can  be  proposed,  and  we  should  be  the  last  to  assert 
that  no  teacher  should  modify  any  adjustment 
or  arrangement  to  suit  his  own  needs  and  inclina- 
tions, if  they  are  based  on  an  intelligent  regard  for 
the  subject  and  his  pupils.  Many  teachers  will 
prefer  to  give  the  civil  government  separately  after 
the  history  work  is  concluded.  But  while  this  plan 
may  have  its  advantages  in  some  respects,  the  con- 
tinuous study  of  government  throughout  the  year 
side  by  side  with  history  has  also  advantages  that 
merit  consideration.  Where  the  study  of  govern- 
ment extends  through  the  whole  year,  there  are 
many  opportunities  for  concrete  illustrations  and 
even  learning  by  observation,  which  are  not  allowed 
in  a  shorter  time :  elections  are  held ;  municipal 
problems  arise  and  are  discussed  in  the  newspapers ; 
important  appointments  to  office  are  announced ; 
the  usual  presidential  message  appears.  These 
advantages  will  induce  many  teachers  to  prefer  the 


Present  Conditions  53 

system  of  carrying  government  through  the  year 
side  by  side  with  history. 

IX.   More  Time  for  Modern  History 

In  the  decade  and  more  that  has  passed  since  the 
Committee  of  Seven  reported,  there  has  been  a 
growing  interest  in  the  study  of  modern  history. 
Many  teachers  have  come  to  feel  strongly  that  a 
study  of  the  past  should  distinctly  help  in  under- 
standing the  present.  They  believe  that  for  a 
knowledge  of  present  social  and  political  conditions 
there  is  need  of  a  reasonable  familiarity  with  the 
great  changes  of  the  past  century,  and  that  history 
courses  should  be  so  arranged  as  to  allow  ample 
opportunity  for  the  study  of  the  development  and 
progress  of  modern  Europe.  As  the  course  is  now 
arranged  and  as  it  is  not  uncommonly  taught,  quite 
as  much  attention  is  given  to  the  Middle  Ages  as 
to  modern  times ;  in  fact,  probably  many  teachers 
would  confess  that  their  pupils  know  more  of  the 
crusades  than  of  the  colonial  expansion  of  Europe, 
and  that  Charlemagne  and  Peter  the  Hermit  are 
more  familiar  figures  than  is  Napoleon,  or  Cavour, 
or  Bismarck.  Such  a  condition  can  scarcely  be 
justified.  Interesting  and  important  as  are  the 
great  statesmen  and  soldiers  of  mediaeval  times, 
they  are  not  more  important  to  us  than  the  men  of 


'/ 


54  Modern  History 

more  recent  centuries.  Why  should  we  know  of 
Frederic  Barbarossa  or  Innocent  III  and  be  ignorant 
of  their  great  successors  ?  Surely  Pitt  and  Palmer- 
ston  and  Gladstone  are  more  significant  to  us  than 
are  Athelstane  or  Thomas  Becket.  From  the  study 
of  history,  it  is  true,  much  more  is  to  be  gained  than 
a  modicum  of  information  about  the  immediate 
background  of  European  politics;  the  value  of 
history  is  not  to  be  measured  merely  by  its  con- 
tribution to  knowledge  of  the  present.  But  on 
the  other  hand  there  appears  no  valid  reason  for 
avoiding  a  more  intensive  study  of  more  recent 
centuries  or  for  spending  so  much  time  on  the 
earlier  ages  that  the  pupils  get  little  or  nothing  of 
the  social  changes  and  political  movements  which 
have  in  modern  times  transformed  the  face  of  Eu- 
rope. The  desire  of  teachers  to  emphasize  moder 
history,  therefore,  strongly  appeals  to  the  members' 
of  this  Committee.  Although  we  appreciate  fully 
the  cultural  value  of  all  historical  study  and 
although  we  should  deplore  the  abandonment  of 
the  older  fields,  we  are  quite  in  accord  with  those 
who  wish  to  see  sufficient  time  given  for  the  delib- 
erate study  of  the  later  period. 

If  dissatisfaction  with  the  curriculum  marked 
out  by  the  Committee  of  Seven  were  quite  general 
or  if  some  distinct  plan  for  rearrangement  were 
commonly    advocated    by    experienced    teachers, 


I 


Alternatives  55 

it  would  not  be  so  difficult  to  determine  what 
changes  should  be  made.  But  even  among  those 
desiring  this  increased  emphasis  on  modern  times, 
there  appears  to  be  no  general  agreement.  Many 
teachers  are  not  advocating  a  breaking  up  of  the 
old  schedule  and  the  establishment  of  a  new,  dis- 
tinct course;  they  are  simply  in  sympathy  with 
the  movement  for  more  modern  history.  It  appears 
to  us  likely  that  many  schools  will  soon  rearrange 
their  courses;  and  even  where  no  fundamental 
change  is  made,  there  will  not  infrequently  be  a 
shifting  of  emphasis  in  order  that  modern  history 
may  receive  fuller  treatment. 

In  light  of  all  these  conditions  we  do  not  advo- 
cate an  immediate  change  in  every  school,  the  uni- 
versal abandonment  of  the  plan  of  the  Committee 
of  Seven,  and  the  immediate  substitution  of  a  new 
curriculum.  We  have  tried  to  make  it  clear  that 
an  emphasis  on  modern  times  is,  in  our  opinion, 
desirable,  and  we  believe  a  rearrangement  of  the 
curriculum  is  much  to  be  desired.  But  something 
must  be  left  to  the  determination  of  the  teacher; 
something  must  be  left  to  circumstances  and  condi- 
tions ;  and  it  seems  to  us  we  should  not  be  justified 
in  condemning  the  curriculum  proposed  by  the 
Committee  of  Seven  as  so  totally  wrong  in  principle 
that  schools  should  in  all  cases  immediately  abandon 
it  for  a  curriculum  that  appeals  to  us  as  better  in 


56  Modern  History 

some  particulars.  Any  radical  rearrangement  is 
a  serious  matter  when  the  schools  of  the  whole 
country  are  concerned,  and  it  should  be  entered 
upon  with  a  full  understanding  of  what  the  change 
involves.  We  content  ourselves,  therefore,  first, 
with  advising  a  change  in  emphasis  when  the  aban- 
donment of  the  plan  marked  out  by  the  Committee 
of  Seven  does  not  seem  feasible;  and  second,  by 
the  proposal  of  a  course  which  we  believe  to  be  on 
the  whole  better  than  the  old,  and  which  we  think 
will  suit  the  needs  of  schools  ready  to  take  up  seri- 
ously the  study  of  modern  history. 

For  the  schools  adhering  to  the  blocks  or  periods 
now  commonly  given  there  is  only  one  way  to  get 
more  time  for  modern  history.  That  way  is  to 
abridge  the  mediaeval  period  in  general  European 
history  and  in  English  history ;  it  is  the  old  remedy 
f  of  condensation  and  omission.  The  early  centuries 
must  be  treated  as  introductory  or  preparatory 
only;  those  things  must  be  selected  that  are  con- 
spicuous and  of  deep  significance;  those  things 
must  be  omitted  that  are  not  of  fundamental  impor- 
tance and  that  do  not  materially  aid  in  the  appre- 
ciation of  later  times.  Of  course  this  is  easier  in 
the  saying  than  in  the  doing.  But  even  where  text- 
books do  not  make  such  elimination  and  cursory 
treatment  easy,  the  task  is  by  no  means  an  impos- 
sible one.     The  fuller  attention  to  the  later  centuries 


ir 


A  New  Course  57 

of  England  and  the  Continent  is  quite  within  the 
range  of  possibility  for  the  well-prepared  teacher, 
especially  if  the  school  is  provided  with  illustrative 
material  and  suitable  reference  books. 

This  mere  shifting  of  emphasis  will  not  satisfy 
those  who  are  intent  upon  the  careful  and  fairly 
elaborate  study  of  modern  times.  They  will  point 
out  the  difficulty  of  carrying  out  the  plan  of  abridg- 
ment and  condensation  in  the  earHer  period ;  they 
will  argue  that  the  modern  development  of  England 
and  the  Continent  needs  to  be  studied  in  a  single 
course  and  that  the  second  year,  in  which  general 
European  history  is  commonly  given,  should  be 
devoted  to  the  study  of  events  leading  up  to  modern 
history.  To  get  substantial  and  satisfying  results 
from  the  study  of  modern  history  requires,  it  will 
be  said,  at  least  a  year  for  concentrated  connected 
study.  Such  assertions  are  certainly  not  without 
force ;  they  constitute  a  strong  argument  for  the 
establishment  of  a  separate  course. 

X.   A  New  Schedule  of  Courses 

The  establishment  of  a  separate  course  in  modern 
history  involves,  in  our  judgment,  placing  English 
history  in  the  second  year.  Perhaps  it  might  more 
properly  be  said  that  the  second  year  should  be 
devoted  to  a  study  of  English  history  together  with 


58  A  New  Schedule 

the  general  history  of  Europe.  The  main  line  of 
Enghsh  growth  should  be  followed,  and  events  and 
conditions  on  the  Continent  of  supreme  importance 
for  the  understanding  of  general  European  develop- 
ment should  be  introduced  in  connection  with  the 
history  of  England.  The  course  will  naturally 
begin  with  the  break-up  of  the  Roman  Em.pire 
and  give  a  rapid  survey  of  conditions  in  England 
and  on  the  Continent  in  the  later  portion  of  the 
period  covered  by  the  course  in  ancient  history. 
.Throughout  the  study  of  the  Middle  Ages  the  most 
significant  movements  in  Europe  can  be  introduced 
and  made  to  stand  out  with  distinctness.  The 
establishment  and  growth  of  the  papal  power, 
the  great  institutions  of  the  church,  the  foundation 
of  the  religious  orders,  the  contest  between  papal 
and  temporal  authority,  can  not  only  be  properly 
studied  as  a  part  of  general  European  history  but 
can  be  seen  also  as  part  of  the  history  of  England. 
The  same  can  be  said  of  feudalism,  which  cannot 
be  understood  as  it  existed  in  England  without  some 
examination  of  the  feudal  system  on  the  Continent. 
The  growth  of  the  kingly  authority  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  national  state  can  be  seen  both  in 
England  and  in  continental  Europe.  So  also  of  the 
Crusades  and  the  spread  of  the  Northmen  —  the 
pupil  will  get  totally  wrong  conceptions  if  he  does 
not  see  these  facts  as  part  of  European  history. 


England  and  the  Continent  59 

Social  conditions  of  mediasval  times  and  the  ex- 
tent and  character  of  mediaeval  commerce  can  also 
be  studied  in  connection  with  the  history  of  Eng- 
land. The  rise  of  the  towns  and  the  growth  of 
parliament  give  opportunity  for  valuable  com- 
parisons and  the  imparting  of  useful  knowledge  of 
conditions  on  both  sides  of  the  Channel.  The 
truth  is  that  such  topics  as  these,  often  treated  in 
the  course  of  English  history  as  of  purely  insular 
importance,  can  be  understood  properly  only  when 
seen  in  the  setting  of  general  European  history. 
The  Renaissance  and  the  revival  of  learning  must, 
under  any  circumstances,  be  seen  first,  not  in  back- 
ward England,  but  in  the  life  of  the  more  advanced 
nations  of  the  Continent.  The  study  of  Wyclif 
and  the  pre-Reformation  conditions  in  England  give 
opportunity  for  the  study  of  John  Huss  and  the 
growing  discontent  in  continental  Europe,  while 
the  Reformation  itself  necessitates,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, the  introduction  of  Luther  before  one 
enters  upon  the  separation  of  the  English  Church 
from  Rome. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  age  of  discovery.  It 
cannot  be  treated  as  if  England  first  entered  the 
race  and  was  a  leader  in  achievement.  Henry  the 
Navigator  was  a  grandson  of  John  of  Gaunt,  yet 
it  was  Portugal,  not  England,  that  pointed  the 
way  to  the  Indies.    John   Cabot  himself  was  a 


6o  A  New  Schedule 

Venetian,  and  for  long  years  after  him  the  Italian, 
Spanish,  and  Portuguese  seamen  were  the  pioneers 
in  maritime  adventure.  But  even  the  great  dis- 
coveries, the  finding  of  the  new  heaven  and  the 
new  earth,  are  of  such  supreme  importance  in 
English  history  that  no  excuse  need  be  made  for 
the  introduction  of  Prince  Henry,  Columbus,  and 
the  bold  Portuguese  sailor  who  rounded  the  cape 
England  now  holds,  on  his  voyage  to  the  Indies, 
now  ruled  as  an  English  possession. 

Some  subjects  of  prime  significance,  it  is  true, 
cannot  be  studied  merely  when  incidents  or  condi- 
tions in  English  history  call  for  their  presentation. 
Nor,  indeed,  is  such  a  treatment  in  immediate 
connection  with  England  always  desirable.  The 
course  of  English  history  offers  a  convenient  and 
suitable  line  to  be  followed ;  to  follow  it  will  probably 
help  in  giving  coherence,  strength,  and  simplicity 
to  the  work;  and  as  English  history  is  in  some 
ways  our  history,  and  as  our  own  institutions 
were  making  in  the  kingdoms  of  Alfred,  William 
the  Conqueror,  and  Edward  I,  we  may  well  hesitate 
to  cast  aside  the  advantage  of  seeing  the  growth 
of  the  English  state  and  the  establishment  of  Eng- 
lish liberties.  But,  withal,  many  of  the  great 
movements,  as  we  have  already  said,  were  not 
pecuharly  English;  and  there  is  a  real  advantage 
in  seeing  the  general  European   character   of  the 


England  and  the  Continent  6i 

most  significant  social  and  political  development. 
If  occasionally  the  teacher  or  text-writer  must 
leave  the  course  of  English  history  to  describe 
events  that,  comparatively  speaking,  remotely 
influenced  the  growth  of  England,  such  digressions 
need  not  cause  confusion  or  perplexity.  The 
early  rise  and  progress  of  the  Mohammedan  power, 
for  instance,  cannot  be  treated  as  in  any  sense 
of  especial  importance  to  England,  though  the 
participation  of  Richard  Cceur  de  Lion  in  the 
third  crusade  gives  opportunity  for  saying  some- 
thing of  Mohammedanism  and  for  studying  the 
crusading  movement.  The  spread  of  the  Ottoman 
Turk  and  the  influence  of  his  conquests  cannot  be 
introduced  as  merely  incidental  matter,  where 
some  event  in  the  history  of  England  seems  to 
furnish  the  excuse.  But  if  time  can  be  taken  for 
suitable  treatment  of  such  matters,  and  even  if 
they  are  brought  in  with  little  or  no  pretence  of 
finding  their  connection  with  English  history,  the 
loss  in  interest  and  continuity  need  not  be  serious, 
if  there  be  loss  at  all. 

If  only  the  most  superficial  treatment  were  to 
be  given  to  the  events  on  the  Continent  from  the 
Council  of  Trent  to  the  accession  of  Louis  XIV, 
the  result  would  not  be  disastrous.  Probably 
something  should  be  known  of  the  wars  of  religion 
in  France,  and  some  impression  should  be  gained 


62  A  New  Schedule 

of  the  extent  and  character  of  the  Thirty  Years' 
War,  but  the  average  pupil  surely  need  not  be  bur- 
dened with  anything  like  detail.  Of  course  Eng- 
lish history  cannot  omit  suitable  reference  to  the 
rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  the  expansion  and  de- 
cline of  Spain,  and  the  growth  of  French  power 
and  influence  in  Europe.  But  the  age  of  Eliza- 
beth and  the  course  of  the  English  struggle  for 
constitutional  liberty  in  the  seventeenth  century 
are  too  important  to  be  obscured  by  undue  atten- 
tion to  Continental  history.  A  certain  amount  of 
attention  is  inevitable  and  may  illuminate  rather 
than  obscure;  but  particular  effort  must  be  made 
to  avoid  confusion.  With  the  accession  of  Louis 
XIV,  Continental  history  may  be  left  to  the  study 
of  the  third  year,  with  only  such  reference  to 
France  and  other  lands  of  Europe  as  the  study  of 
English  history  requires.  The  main  outline  of 
English  progress  can  be  followed  as  far  as  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  or  the  accession 
of  George  III. 

The  study  of  England's  growth  from  the  acces- 
sion of  Elizabeth  to  George  III  necessitates  some 
reference  to  English  adventure  and  English  col- 
onization. The  establishment  and  growth  of  the 
American  colonies  must  be  noted  and  only  the  press- 
ure of  time  need  prevent  such  a  treatment  of  the 
colonies  as  to  make  an  extended  treatment  in  the 


Modern  History  63 

fourth  year  unnecessary.  The  course  in  American 
history  must  inevitably  begin  with  a  picture  of 
colonial  conditions,  include  a  distinct  statement 
of  the  nature  of  colonial  development,  point  out 
those  tendencies  and  qualities  in  colonial  Kfe  that 
account  for  independence,  and  make  clear  the 
achievements  of  the  colonies  that  are  of  real  sig- 
nificance in  our  national  history.  But  if  the  course 
in  EngKsh  history  has  included  an  examination 
of  the  English  colonial  system  and  a  study,  even 
though  a  hurried  one,  of  colonial  growth,  it  will 
be  possible  to  pass  over  quickly  or  to  omit  altogether 
many  things  now  dwelt  on  in  the  first  two  or  three 
months  of  work  in  American  history. 

To  outline  the  course  in  modern  history  which 
we  recommend  for  the  third  year  would  be  super- 
fluous. Teachers  and  text- writers  will  be  sure  to 
differ  concerning  details  of  arrangement  and 
emphasis.  We  desire  therefore  only  to  say  that 
in  all  likehhood  it  will  be  necessary  to  reach  back 
into  mediaeval  history  at  least  occasionally,  in 
order,  if  for  no  other  reason,  to  get  hold  again 
of  institutions,  customs,  and  practices  which  the 
modern  world  was  altering  or  casting  aside.  The 
.  course  will,  we  presume,  begin  with  Louis  XIV 
/  and  be  carried  down  to  the  present,  devoting 
suitable  attention  to  the  rise  of  the  modern  states, 
European  expansion,  the  development  of  free  in- 


64  A  New  Schedule 

stitutions,  economic  progress,  and  social  change. 
At  least  from  1760  the  course  will  naturally  include 
not  only  the  history  of  the  Continent  but  of  England 
as  well.  Some  attention  can  be  paid  to  American 
colonial  history,  and  thus  help  to  reheve  the  press- 
ure on  the  last  year  of  study. 

The  four  blocks  of  study  under  this  arrange- 
ment would  then  be  as  follows :  — 

A.  Ancient  History  to  800  a.d.  or  thereabouts, 
the  events  of  the  last  five  hundred  years  to  be  passed 
over  rapidly  in  some  such  manner  as  we  have  sug- 
gested above  (pp.  29-35). 

B.  English  History,  beginning  with  a  brief 
statement  of  England's  connection  with  the  ancient 
world.  The  work  should  trace  the  main  line  of 
English  development  to  about  1760,  include  as 
far  as  is  possible  or  convenient  the  chief  facts  of 
general  European  history,  especially  before  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  give  something  of  the 
colonial  history  of  America. 

C.  Modern  European  History,  including  such 
introductory  matter  concerning  later  mediaeval 
institutions  and  the  beginnings  of  the  modern  age  as 
seems  wise  or  desirable,  and  giving  a  suitable  treat- 
ment of  English  history  from  1760. 

D.  American  History  and  Government,  arranged 
on  such  a  basis  that  some  time  may  be  secured  for 
the  separate  study  of  government.    We  propose, 


Required  History  65 

as  explained  in  the  earlier  portions  of  this  report, 
a  possible  division  of  the  year  which  would  allow 
two-fifths  of  the  time  for  such  separate  and  dis- 
tinct treatment. 

XL    Shall  Three  Years  be  Required  in  the 

High  Schools  ? 

The  Committee  of  Seven,  although  recommending 
a  four  years'  course  and  pointing  out  the  advantages 
of  continuous  study,  did  not  propose  that  all 
students  be  directly  required  to  take  a  long  series 
of  courses  in  history.  The  subject  has  been  much 
discussed  by  the  present  Committee ;  and  we  are 
strongly  of  the  opinion  that  the  time  has  come 
when  many  schools  can  introduce  the  require- 
ment of  three  years  of  history  from  every  pupil. 
We  recognize  the  difficulty  of  giving  three  years  to 
history  in  courses  that  are  already  filled  to  over- 
flowing with  ancient  and  modern  languages  and 
with  mathematics  and  science.  And  yet  history 
and  government  are  so  valuable,  their  effects, 
if  properly  taught,  should  aid  so  distinctly  and 
directly  in  giving  pupils  an  appreciation  of  the  pres- 
ent and  a  sense  of  social  Ufe  and  social  respon- 
sibility, that  we  cannot  believe  they  should  be 
sacrificed  to  the  pursuit  of  other  subjects.  If  lan- 
guage and  literature  are  cultural,  in  the  narrow 


66  Three  Years 

sense  and  in  the  wider  sense  also,  history  too  is/ 
cultural;  it  helps  to  widen  the  horizon,  to  deepen 
the  sympathies,  and  to  develop  the  judgment.  If 
mathematics  and  science  require  exactness  and  / 
precision  of  statement  and  clear  thinking,  so  also' 
does  history,  at  least  in  considerable  measure,  if 
it  be  taught  with  intelligence  and  care.  It  is  true 
that  conclusions  in  history  do  not  always  rest  on 
demonstration,  but  often  on  conflicting  evidence, 
and  frequently  it  is  not  easy,  or  even  possible,  to 
speak  with  the  assurance  and  precision  one  may 
use  in  science;  but  the  training  in  judgment,  in 
candor,  and  in  scientific  fairness  is  not  to  be  ignored ; 
in  daily  life  one  must  often  rest  his  conclusions  on 
the  same  kind  of  testimony  that  one  is  called  upon 
to  consider  in  history.  To  require  that,  of  the  six- 
teen or  seventeen  units  offered  in  the  ordinary 
course,  three  should  be  taken  in  history  does  not 
seem  to  be  an  exorbitant  requirement. 

Such  a  suggestion  as  this,  coming  from  this  Com- 
mittee, may  appear  to  be  a  desire  for  more  history 
as  a  college  entrance  requirement,  or  as  a  result  of 
a  desire  to  get  more  history  in  the  schools,  that 
college  teachers  may  have  a  broader  foundation  to 
build  upon.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  We  have 
not  in  this  report  considered  the  needs  of  the 
colleges.  In  fact,  college  teachers  of  history  are 
not  supremely  anxious,  for  any  particular  purpose 


Recommendation  67 

of  their  own,  aboiit  the  amount  of  history  studied 
in  the  schools.  The  study  of  history  in  the  schools 
is  more  important  for  those  that  do  not  go  to 
college  than  for  those  that  do.  The  thing  that  we 
deplore  is  that  young  men  and  women  should 
leave  the  schools  and  encounter  the  work  and 
pleasure  of  mature  years  without  a  knowledge  of 
history,  for  history  will  peculiarly  help  to  fit  them 
for  entering  upon  their  duties  in  society  and  give 
them  the  basis  for  satisfaction  in  the  intellectual 
Hfe. 

XII.   Trade  Schools 

The  recent  movements  in  the  line  of  commercial, 
technical,  and  industrial  education  have  forced  on 
the  attention  of  the  Committee  the  necessity  of 
making  some  statement  concerning  historical 
courses  in  schools  where  such  education  is  to  be 
given.  In  the  overwhelming  enthusiasm  of  the 
moment,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  over-ardent  advo- 
cates may  venture  to  exclude  historical  instruction 
altogether  or  recommend  courses  in  which  only 
the  development  of  shipping,  the  progress  of  in- 
vention, and  the  processes  of  manufacture  are 
studied  to  the  exclusion  of  the  political  and  social 
background  which  is  really  necessary  for  the  com- 
plete understanding  of  any  commercial,  scientific, 
or  industrial  movement. 


\ 


68  Trade  Schools 

In  such  schools  the  Committee  is  of  the  opinion 
that  a  course  in  modern  history  should  be  required, 
and  that  it  should  be  followed  by  a  course  in  United 
States  history  and  government.  The  demand  that 
our  high  schools  should  prepare  for  intelligent  citi- 
zenship certainly  makes  necessary  the  requirement 
of  these  two  courses  in  all  of  them.  Pupils  may  or 
may  not  become  artisans  or  captains  of  industry, 
but  they  will  all  be  citizens  and  need  the  background 
of  knowledge  and  of  interest  that  comes,  or  should 
come,  from  the  intelligent  study  of  the  social  and 
political  life  of  the  past  and  the  political  organiza- 
tion of  the  present.     If  two  years  of  history  be 

■  given  in  the  curriculum,  this  could  scarcely  be 
looked  on  as  an  excess  of  liberalizing  study;  for  it 
is  not  unlikely  that  history  will  be  the  only,  or 
almost  the  only,  non-technical,  non-occupational 
study  offered. 

There  is  a  reasonable  desire  that  such  schools 
should  offer  courses  in  economics  and  in  commercial 
geography.  Both  of  these  studies  need  to  be  corre- 
lated with  history  and  can  be  given  with  best  effect 
to  pupils  that  are  studying  or  have  studied  history. 
No  plan  or  method  of  correlation,  however,  should, 
in  our  judgment,  result  in  the  essential  diminution 
of  the  time  we  have  named  as  an  irreducible  mini- 
mum to  be  devoted  substantially  and  in  fact  to 

'history    and    government.     It    will   probably    be 


The  Necessary  Minimum  69 

feasible  to  introduce  into  the  history  course  not  a 
little  industrial  history.  But,  whatever  may  be 
done,  this  appears  certain  —  the  pupils  from  the 
trade  or  semi-professional  schools  should  not  be 
turned  out  upon  the  world  ignorant  of  the  main 
currents  of  modern  history,  ignorant  of  the  history 
of  their  own  country  and  the  ideals  it  has  tried  to 
make  its  own,  and  ignorant  of  the  government 
under  which  they  Hve  and  on  which  they  must 
have  their  share  of  influence. 

Andrew  C.  McLAUGm^iN, 
Professor  of  History,  University  of  Chicago, 

Chairman. 

Charles  H.  Haskins, 
Professor  of  History,  Harvard  University. 

James  Harvey  Robinson, 
Professor  of  History,  Columbia  University. 

James  Sullivan, 
Principal  of  the  Boys'  High  School,  Brooklyn. 


INDEX 


Age    of    discovery,    studied    with 
English  history,  59,  60. 
i  American    Historical    Association, 
5 ;   also  teachers  of  government 
and  politics,  45. 

American  history,  government,  9, 
10,  II,  44,  46;  separate  treat- 
ment, 49,  50 ;  an  English  back- 
ground, 51 ;  begin  with  colonial 
times,  63 ;  for  fourth  year,  64. 
See  also  Civil  Government. 

American  Political  Science  Asso- 
ciation, report,  44;  Committee 
of  Five  members  of,  45. 

Ancient  History,  7  ;  in  three  years' 
course,  23 ;  single  course,  24  ; 
emphasis  on  Hellenistic  period, 
27 ;  limits,  29,  S3 ',  transitional 
period  of,  31;  subjects  treated, 
33 ;  examination  questions,  34  ; 
immaturity  of  students,  35  ; 
treatment,  27,  36;  in  first  year, 
35,  64. 

Association  of  History  Teachers  of 
Middle  States  and  Maryland,  5. 

Circulars  of  inquiry,  5;  replies,  6- 
10;  replies  inconclusive,  12;  con- 
sidered, 6-13. 

Civil  Government,  relation  to 
United  States  history,  9 ;  com- 
bined with,  or  separate,  10,  11; 
with  history,  44-53  ;  not  crowded 
out,  48 ;  separate  treatment,  49- 


52;  mutually  helpful,  50;  dis- 
tribution of  time,  50-52. 

College  Entrance  Examination 
Board,  questions,  31;  "mere 
memory,"  42. 

College     entrance     examinations. 

Colonial  history,  in  connection 
with  EngUsh,  51;  brief  treat- 
ment, 63. 

Committee  of  Eight,  36. 

Committee  of  Five,  personnel  of, 
I ;  relation  to  Committee  of 
Seven,  i ;  how  appointed,  4. 

Committee  of  Seven,  relation  to 
Committee  of  Five,  i;  rec- 
ommendations, 4;  teachers  of 
government,  45. 

Committee  of  Seven  Report,  in- 
terpretation of,  2 ;  criticism  of,  6 ; 
influence  of,  7 ;  short  course  in 
general  history,  18;  what  to 
teach,  37 ;  single  course  for  Greek 
and  Roman  history,  24;  Orien- 
tal history,  26;  unifying  ancient 
history,  26 ;  recommendations 
not  altered,  39;  changes  con- 
sidered, 55 ;  abandonment  not 
advised,  55  ;  consideration  of  by. 
Committee  of  American  Pohtical 
Science  Association,  44. 

Comparison  and  judgment,  41,  42. 

Courses  of  study,  similarity  a  con- 
venience, 3;    radical  alteration 


71 


72 


Index 


unnecessary,  4,  55;  four  years' 
work  possible,  6;  influence  of 
Report  of  Committee  of  Seven,  7  ; 
in  government  and  history,  10, 
1 1 ;  four-year  and  three-year, 
16-20;  in  general  history,  18; 
Greek  and  Roman,  24;  Oriental 
history,  26;  unifying  ancient 
history,  26 ;  no  immediate  change 
in,  55 ;  rearrangement  desirable, 
55;  new  schedule,  57-64;  for 
trade  schools,  67. 

English  history,  in  second  year,  57, 
64;  in  connection  with  conti- 
nental, 59. 

Equipment    for   teaching   history, 

13,  15- 
European    history,    24;    what    to 

teach  with  English  history,  60,  61. 
Examinations,  31,  38. 

Four  years'  course,  6,  16,  18. 

General  history,  single  year  course 
abandoned,  7 ;  four  years'  course, 
16,  17. 

Historical  thinking,  39. 
History  teachers  of  California,  5. 

Mediaeval  and  modern  history,  9, 

53-59- 
Mediaeval    history,    rapid  survey, 

24,    56;    studied    with    English 

history,  55-61. 
Memorizing  history,  12. 
"Mere  memory,"  38,  40,  42. 
Methods,    afifected    by    report    of 

Committee  of  Seven,  3,  4;  pre- 


vailing, 15;  recommended,  14- 
15,  23,  41,  42. 
Modern  history,  emphasized,  9, 
54 ;  colonial  history  taught  with, 
51;  more  time  for,  53-55;  for 
third  year,  63,  64. 

New  England  History  Teachers' 
Association,  5 ;  recommendations, 
12. 

North  Central  History  Teachers' 
Association,  5. 

Oral  instruction,  23. 

Oriental  history,  brief  survey  ad- 
vised, 25 ;  course  should  con- 
tain, 26. 

Purposes  of  historical  study,  22, 
39. 

Required  history,  65-66. 
Schedule  of  Courses,  57-65. 

Teacher,  material  for,  13;  quali- 
fications of,  14;  avoiding  ex- 
tremes, 41 ;  must  choose  signifi- 
cant subjects,  18-22,  28,  60,  61. 

Text-books,  21,  26. 

Three  years'  course,  16,  20-23,  65. 

Time,  divided  between  history  and 
government,  50—52;  proportion 
in  fourth  year,  52;  more  for 
modern  history,  53,  56. 

Trade  schools,  67. 

United  States  history,  ^ee  American 
history. 


v\^-«ii 'C"  1  fvumi-rri    vr^—- ^     ■."-"•  .••i-jn.'     — \im-n.  ji^v'>j>.^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


29^'^'i 


52RI 


8  1952  U! 


:..r 


G 


t^LJ 


240ct'o6ftiV 
REC'D  LD 

OCT  23  19oZ 


SEP2£  '^60 
EC'D  I  ^ 


BBCCIB.    JUL  27 15 


.MAYl3'b4-t^MW' 


REC'D 

JAN  12  1968 


.•* 


^  FEB  6lS8-6Pi 


21-95?«--ll,'50(2877sl6)476 


